The Obama administration will not accept applications for legal status from undocumented immigrants on Wednesday after a federal judge in Texas blocked implementation of President Obama’s policy deferring the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the administration would appeal the court ruling. “in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it,” he said.

Obama may have started an executive action without proper regard to law when it comes to work permits, but the DACA expansion is another kind of problem. Hanen’s ruling noted that the new DHS interpretation of DACA requires them to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, posting a notice of rule change and waiting for a comment period to expire before finalizing the change. That would require at least 30 days before making the rule change effective. [snip]

This again impacts the political issues surrounding the funding for DHS. As long as Johnson keeps talking about implementing DAPA and DACA, Republicans have reason to withhold the funding that could be used for those purposes. If anything, the recognition of Johnson’s discretion in this matter makes the point even more acute for conservatives. One might be able to fight Obama in court over the obvious abuse of power in changing eligibility for work permits without Congressional approval, but the only way to stop Johnson on the other points is to either cut off the money or use the Congressional Research Act to void the regulatory changes — and that would require Obama’s signature.

This gets more interesting by the hour.

——————————————–

Update: It’s a preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining order which would expire in a couple of weeks. As we write below, the most interesting aspect of the immigration ruling is the political question Will DHS funding dynamics shift after court ruling?

Republicans should demand Obama Senate Dimocrats pass a bill which defunds Obama’s illegal illegal immigration dictats. A stall tactic of passing a 30 day “clean bill” would be defeatist and a win for Obama. The smart move for Republicans is to fight this February not later:

Foley suggested that the PI’s protection against executive overreach might convince conservatives to allow a short-term bill that fully funds DHS. It’s much more likely that the ruling will leave moderate Republicans in the Senate no cover to push for a so-called “clean” bill. After all, what would be the rationale for giving DHS all of the funding when Josh Earnest woke up at 2:48 AM this morning to declare that the White House still planned to use it to move forward with its executive action on immigration? With the court ruling Obama’s plan unconstitutional and illegal, they will have no choice but to fall back in line to restrict funding from those efforts.

Although the court sided with the states, the court did not declare the substance of the policy itself unlawful — at least not yet. According to the lengthy ruling by Judge Andrew Hanen, the administration failed to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The time is now for Congress (with the courts) to fight the lawless executive.

We’ve argued for a while now that the courts would join the fight alongside the legislative branch to block a totalitarian executive. That happened today.

We’ve also argued that this coalition of judicial and legislative branches against the totalitarian executive is the way to go:

Why do we think this lawsuit is the way to go? First, congressional action by the GOP this year is symbolic at best because the Harry Reid/Obama Senate will not pass legislation to stop Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive power grab. It’s best for opponents of Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive diktat to act once the new congress begins and Republicans are in control of both houses of congress.

To wait until next year however means that wheels will begin to turn and Obama’s diktat might begin to produce real harm as illegal immigrants see an open road for them to ride on. Which brings us to our most important consideration. The second reason for why this lawsuit is the way to go is: illegal immigrants are not stupid.

Illegal immigrants are not stupid. Few will risk trust in Obama when faced with the fact that Obama’s cheesy political ploy will expire once Obama is out of office. Even fewer illegal immigrants will trust Obama’s illegal illegal executive action now that they know that there are lawsuits which challenge Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive diktat.

The court order came today, just before Obama’s illegal illegal immigration scams erupted over the land. Here’s the court order:

Aside from the legal, this decision impacts the political fight over the current funding fight for the Department of Homeland Security. Also, as we surmised so long ago, illegal immigrants will think twice about outing themselves to legal authorities merely on the word of an outlaw executive.National Review sees some of what we wrote about:

The federal government is expected to immediately ask for a stay of the injunction. That would allow the feds to resume the process of preparing to grant quasi-legal status to millions of illegal immigrants — applications for one category of the president amnesty were to open this week. For now, that can’t happen; the decision from a higher court will probably take a few weeks.

Whatever the final decision is, this ruling should a bit of ammunition for Republicans who are currently trying to force some Democrats into agreeing to a government-funding bill in Congress that blocks the implementation of the order, which many Democrats once opposed.

Such an injunction isn’t granted unless the judge feels the plaintiffs have “a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Hanen’s ruling offers analysis of whether the states have standing to sue (on a number of grounds, he says they do), and whether they have a good chance at success.

The basic argument from the states that Hanen favors isn’t one about constitutional improprieties (he doesn’t get to that question, which the states have raised); it’s that the Department of Homeland Security has effectively created a whole new program and procedure without following any of the legally necessary steps. The Obama administration’s use of deferred action amounts to new rulemaking, Hanen suggests, because there’s so little evidence that the system, based on DACA, involves case-by-case discretion, as the feds claim it does.

“DHS does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the expressed will of Congress. It cannot, however, enact a program in which it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them,” Hanen wrote. “DHS Secretary [Jeh Johnson] is not just rewriting the laws he is creating them from scratch.” [snip]

The Texas judge’s ruling blocked both key parts of Obama’s new immigration initiative: the expansion of a program the president announced in 2012 to shield illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children and a new program giving similar “deferred action” status to illegal aliens who are parents of U.S. citizens or legal residents.

Hanen’s decision came just two days before officials were set to begin accepting applications for the newly expanded program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA.

However, the bulk of the court’s opinion focuses on the parents’ program, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. Officials were expected to begin accepting applications for that program by May, but no specific start date had been announced.

A federal judge late Monday halted President Obama’s deportation amnesty, ruling he overstepped his powers in trying to grant legal status and “benefits and privileges” to millions of illegal immigrants, in a stunning decision that chides the president and throws the White House’s plans into disarray just a day before applications were to be accepted. [snip]

“The DHS was not given any ‘discretion by law’ to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the DHS itself labels as ‘legal presence,’” Judge Hanen wrote in issuing an injunction. “In fact, the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed. The DHS has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions. These changes go beyond mere enforcement or even non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration scheme.”

In the immediate sense, the ruling will become a major part of the debate over homeland security funding that has roiled Capitol Hill, with Republicans insisting Mr. Obama’s actions were unconstitutional and should be halted through Congress’s spending power, and Democrats backing their president by filibustering to block funding for the Homeland Security Department altogether. [snip]

Judge Hanen’s exhaustive opinion, which ran to 123 pages, eviscerated the administration’s legal arguments. Where Mr. Obama claimed he was only issuing “guidance” and using his powers of prosecutorial discretion to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, the judge ruled that wording was “disingenuous” and ignored the substance of what the president was trying to do.

He also said Mr. Obama hurt his own case by saying he’d acted to “change the law,” implying a much more substantive legal program than his administration was arguing in court.

House Speaker John A. Boehner said Tuesday that a judge’s ruling halting President Obama’s deportation amnesty bolsters the GOP’s push on homeland security funding, which has prompted a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and threatens a possible shutdown of the Homeland Security Department later this month.

Congressional Republicans have been trying to halt Mr. Obama’s new deportation policies through the annual appropriations process, but Democrats have balked, arguing what Mr. Obama did was legal.

“The president said 22 times he did not have the authority to take the very action on immigration he eventually did, so it is no surprise that at least one court has agreed,” Mr. Boehner said. “Hopefully, Senate Democrats who claim to oppose this executive overreach will now let the Senate begin debate on a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department.”

The fight against Obama’s illegal rule by diktat is not merely one to be pursued in the courts although that is certainly a big part of the coalition that must be organized to save the Republic. This fight must be foremost a political fight in the broadest sense.

Politically the court ruling helps the GOP, but that is small potatoes politics. The big impact of the ruling will be on illegal immigrants who will now hesitate to assist Obama in his law-breaking.

For Barack Obama, as with every flim-flam con man the fight is one against the clock. A flim-flam man tries to stay one step ahead of the law. That is precisely what Obama is up to in just about all his endeavors. On ObamaCare the game is to play for time so that ObamaCare will become so deeply embedded in the national fabric that it will be impossible to dislodge.

A portion of the amnesty, that which would expand non-deportability to more illegal aliens whose parents had brought them to the United States, was scheduled to go into effect Wednesday. It appears that will now be delayed.

This is pretty significant. Do I know that because I an immigration lawyer? No. But I can tell because the White House released a statement at 2:30 in the morning vowing to appeal the decision.

Exquisite timing, Judge Hanen.
Admin’s accurate run on calls is again sustained [yippee!]
John Boehner is behaving like a Republican who gives a damn.
Can anyone prop McConnell up long enough to do likewise?
Only defined loser I see at this moment is Republican Senator Dean Heller of NV who voted as a Democrat against HR 240 last week.

No party or president should be allowed to violate or modify without preparer procedure laws with which they don’t agree. Affirmation of the rule of law by this judge is huge. It demonstrates that exceptions to the law are not automatic to Obama. Our government is meant to function within a specific legal framework. For Obama to expect to be allowed to operate outside that framework because he’s – well… Obama. – is ludicrous. It has happened so often that people have lost faith in the ability of laws to protect them, their freedoms, and their rights. The great bringer of light and hope has brought a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness to many people.

If our laws are so week that they can be violated by this president because he considers himself entitled to do so, we are in trouble. But, we have not remained strong and successful as a country for more than two centuries by allowing entitled, narcissistic leaders to do as they pleased. Thankfully this courageous judge actually believed in the rule of law.

Press Releases
Feb 17 2015
McConnell Statement on Federal Court Ruling Blocking President’s Immigration Executive Overreach
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement today after a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against President Obama’s immigration executive overreach:
“This ruling underscores what the President has already acknowledged publicly 22 times: He doesn’t have the authority to take the kinds of actions he once referred to as ‘ignoring the law’ and ‘unwise and unfair.’ Senate Democrats–especially those who’ve voiced opposition to the President’s executive overreach—should end their partisan filibuster of Department of Homeland Security funding.”
###http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7e57d9b1-d6da-4d78-b376-e77660420ea2

Update: It’s a preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining order which would expire in a couple of weeks. As we write below, the most interesting aspect of the immigration ruling is the political question Will DHS funding dynamics shift after court ruling?

Republicans should demand Obama Senate Dimocrats pass a bill which defunds Obama’s illegal illegal immigration dictats. A stall tactic of passing a 30 day “clean bill” would be defeatist and a win for Obama. The smart move for Republicans is to fight this February not later:

Foley suggested that the PI’s protection against executive overreach might convince conservatives to allow a short-term bill that fully funds DHS. It’s much more likely that the ruling will leave moderate Republicans in the Senate no cover to push for a so-called “clean” bill. After all, what would be the rationale for giving DHS all of the funding when Josh Earnest woke up at 2:48 AM this morning to declare that the White House still planned to use it to move forward with its executive action on immigration? With the court ruling Obama’s plan unconstitutional and illegal, they will have no choice but to fall back in line to restrict funding from those efforts.

Although the court sided with the states, the court did not declare the substance of the policy itself unlawful — at least not yet. According to the lengthy ruling by Judge Andrew Hanen, the administration failed to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The time is now for Congress (with the courts) to fight the lawless executive.

the administration failed to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act

Admin, do you have a short explanation of what this Act is about? Does it just mean that Obama as pResident has no authority to change laws without the consent of Congress, or is Congress only involved in funding or refunding these Acts?

Actually, if amnesty is allowed, it’s the states that will have to fund the safety nets to these illegals.

The repubs need to do a much better job of explaining the costs and ramifications of what O & the dims are trying to pull off with their illegal amnesty scam

I don’t think they have explained all the benefits, jobs, money, tax refunds for no taxes ever paid, social security cards & loopholes to path to citizen for illegals…right passed the legals waiting their turn

… several articles referencing the anti-Semitic speech that apparently is not being prosecuted in France….

Yes, another failure, as was the Charlie Hebdo attack itself.

All I can say, the failure was not that of the laws or of the State, but the first ones responsible for this state of affairs are the Jewish community itself.

There is, precisely, no question of the Public Prosecutor or Examining Magistrate coming into the schools to determine if such and such language or treatment is injurious to Jews or girls or Muslims or Roms, etc.

As I have explained several times, it is up to the injured or those around him to cry out in his defense and take the aggressor to court. Thereafter, the Prosecutor will do his job.

There is a man named Harlem Désir, a half-breed like Obama (and communist to boot), who founded an association called “SOS Racisme” under the slogan “Hands off my pal”.

His object was and is to fend off minorities (he is half-Martiniquais) of all breeds, and has been called “one of the moments of the human conscience. He is also one of the moments of the honor of France.” (Eric Raoult)

Several years ago, the French government rounded up the Romani or Gypsies throughout the country, and put their asses on a plane to Romania.

Yes, but that was an entirely different matter. It was a matter of illegal immigration and illegal activities by the Roms. The Roms actually had pretty good relations with the locals, and it was that which inspired the sympathy of so many people.

In any event, freespirit, there’s not much point talking about the failures of the French to deal with racism or illegal immigration when you can easily witness the extravagant failures of the American “system” in both fields.

The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution that limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government violated rulemaking procedures; and that the order will “exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education.”

It also said Obama violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not running his orders through the elaborate process of rulemaking — including 90-day notices and comment periods — instead just ramming them through via directives.

The Obama administration will not accept applications for legal status from undocumented immigrants on Wednesday after a federal judge in Texas blocked implementation of President Obama’s policy deferring the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the administration would appeal the court ruling. “in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it,” he said.

Obama may have started an executive action without proper regard to law when it comes to work permits, but the DACA expansion is another kind of problem. Hanen’s ruling noted that the new DHS interpretation of DACA requires them to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, posting a notice of rule change and waiting for a comment period to expire before finalizing the change. That would require at least 30 days before making the rule change effective. [snip]

This again impacts the political issues surrounding the funding for DHS. As long as Johnson keeps talking about implementing DAPA and DACA, Republicans have reason to withhold the funding that could be used for those purposes. If anything, the recognition of Johnson’s discretion in this matter makes the point even more acute for conservatives. One might be able to fight Obama in court over the obvious abuse of power in changing eligibility for work permits without Congressional approval, but the only way to stop Johnson on the other points is to either cut off the money or use the Congressional Research Act to void the regulatory changes — and that would require Obama’s signature.

Hillary must be serious about running, if she invites Featherhead to her home…

Keep in mind, this has the NYObamaTimes spin on it.

Hillary Rodham Clinton held a private, one-on-one meeting with Senator Elizabeth Warren in December at Mrs. Clinton’s Washington home, a move by the Democrats’ leading contender in 2016 to cultivate the increasingly influential senator and leader of the party’s economic populist movement.

The two met at Whitehaven, the Clintons’ Northwest Washington home, without aides and at Mrs. Clinton’s invitation.

Mrs. Clinton solicited policy ideas and suggestions from Ms. Warren, according to a Democrat briefed on the meeting, who called it “cordial and productive.” Mrs. Clinton, who has been seeking advice from a range of scholars, advocates and officials, did not ask Ms. Warren to consider endorsing her likely presidential candidacy. Aides to Mrs. Clinton did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and aides to Ms. Warren could not be reached.

Article at The Atlantic discussing “Clinton disdain”. Wr refer to it as Clinton Derangement Syndrome. The author mentions some of the most infamous Clinton haters and examines how their hatred has evolved over offer the years. In the title, the author asks:

Among the Hillary Haters

Can a new, professionalized generation of scandalmongers uncover more dirt on the Clintons—without triggering a backlash?

The city’s new municipal ID program allows for personal info provided by applicants to be destroyed at the end of 2016, in case a conservative Republican wins the White House and demands the data, the law’s co-sponsor told The Post on Monday.

City Councilman Carlos Menchaca (D-Brooklyn) said the measure was crafted so data submitted by those seeking the cards can be destroyed on Dec. 31, 2016.

The cards are aimed at undocumented immigrants.

“In case a Tea Party Republican comes into office and says, ‘We want all of the data from all of the municipal ID programs in the country,’ we’re going to take the data,” he explained.

The next president assumes office Jan. 20, 2017.

“That date is an important signal to the future of immigration reform. That allows us to prepare for any new leadership,” Menchaca said.

In order to get an ID, residents must provide their names, addresses, aliases, dates of birth and other information, making it easy for the feds to identify undocumented immigrants.

Menchaca said the Obama administration has shown no interest in going after the data, but he didn’t want to take any chances on the next administration.

“Though we have not seen documents like this get requested at the level of the federal government, that could be a possibility, so that really allows us to protect the data,” he said.

Immigrant advocates praised the provision.

“It’s no secret that one of the biggest sticking points in the ID programs is ensuring that there’s confidentiality, that immigrants are comfortably giving their information to the city,” said Steven Choi, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.

“The sunset is part and parcel of the effort to ensure confidentiality.”

The bill lets the city destroy the info if it determines it’s no longer needed.

The cards were first available early last month. Demand has been overwhelming, with more than 200,000 appointments made for the cards in less than a month.

The Republican House should subpoena the records on November 15 if a Republican is elected president.

3:04 pm: … a report that Muslims burned 45 people is “hate speech” don’cha’know…
—————
Maybe it will count for me that I omitted the word “alive” following the word “burned”. Later reports have the full stark phrase.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Thanks admin for the memorial to Lesley Gore. She is unforgettable.

That Reuters saw fit to publish the following is remarkable IMO. In its entirety,

Obama says disagrees with Texas judge’s immigration ruling
Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:58pm EST
Reuters) – President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he disagreed with a Texas judge’s ruling to block executive actions that shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation and said he believed the issue would be resolved in the White House’s favor.
“With respect to the ruling … I disagree with it,” Obama told reporters in the Oval Office. “I think the law is on our side and history is on our side.”http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/17/us-usa-immigration-obama-idUSKBN0LL25K20150217

HoldThemAccountable, a report that Muslims burned 45 people is “hate speech” don’cha’know. Soon it will be illegal to state facts because it is viewed as racist or insulting to a religion.

Crying “fire” in a crowded theater is the appropriate thing to do when the theater is on fire.

*****************************

Admin and Holdthem…

…listen…we do not want to hurt the feelings of the blood thirsty barbarians…they need our empathy…

in fact, let’s put american jobs on hold and just invite them in with O’s amnesty and take care of the guys…give them carte blance, give them jobs, benefits and let them take over…whatever the poor misunderstood killers want

Detroit man stabbed two people at a suburban bus stop after asking his victims whether or not they were Muslim, according to police. Federal authorities are now looking at the case as a potential hate crime, police said on Tuesday.

Both of the victims were standing at the bus stop outside of Detroit with the suspect on Saturday, Southfield Police Chief Eric Hawkins said. Several people there “engaged in conversation” until the suspect, identified by Hawkins as 39-year-old Terrence Lavaron Thomas, “asked some of the folks there if they were Muslims.”

Two of them answered, the chief told The Post on Tuesday: They were not Muslims.

“”Thomas] was not not happy with that answer,” Hawkins said. Shortly after, “without provocation,” Thomas pulled out a 3-inch folding knife “and attacked one of them,” Hawkins said.

Therein lies a huge part of the problem. People accept what media reports – for the most part.

Lies reported by conservative and liberal media outlets – attempting to manipulate public opinion and ultimately, political outcomes; . In so doing media makes a mockery of the first amendment, the purpose of which was to protect the press from control by and interference from government. There have been a number of times during the past six years when government has attempted to monitor a reporter or a media outlet, and prevent release of specific facts.

The statement quoted in excerpt below is by Marie Harf of US State Dept. It belongs in the AYFKM file. She essentially says that the reason ISIS is beheading people and burning them alive is because there just aren’t enough jobs in the Middle East, and the US needs to focus getting jobs for them.

That is sich a slap in the face of the families of every person killed by these thug with no conscience, these religious zealots, these brutal bastards. Americans should demand her resignation. It’s a damn travesty that tax payer money is being used to pay someone of her caliber and mindset. Obama, no doubt, thoroughly approved of her message. His ass needs to be fired, as well.

As article points out, even after this heinous act of terror, Obama refuses to identify the victims as Christians or the killers as Muslim. Pansy ass.
____________

Article from Daily Mail UK:

(snip)

Marie Harf, the State Department’s no. 2 spokeswoman, said Monday night that ‘lack of opportunity for jobs’ in the Middle East should be US focus
‘We cannot win this war by killing them, we cannot kill our way out of this war,’ she said of the ISIS terror army

Lengthy statement from the White House after brutal killings of 21 Christians by ISIS-linked minitants in Libya made no mention of Christians or Muslims

I hate to harp on this but damn! What the hell is going on when the State Department responds to these mass tortuous killings by saying the terrorists need jobs.. Hell, they have jobs. They’re radical Muslim jihadists. What they need is killing.

Harf and the O people do not seem to understand that evil actually exists…it has nothing to do with having a job…bla, bla, bla

the elites are so out of touch that they do not get that these radicals want nothing less than to overpower the world and turn it into submission to their beliefs…their caliphate…they want to make us all submissive to their sharia law…they do not want to be ‘rehabilitated’ by Harf’s State Dept…they would prefer to kill them

the O admin are either afraid to act and lead, in denial…or just plain out stupid…

it feels like we have high schoolers running our government…all distracted and uttering pure nonsense that the rest of the world is either laughing at or horrified at seeing how meek the USA has become

the evil is not going away…and it is coming our way…

the “job” these ‘evil doers’ have is rounding up almost 50 people to burn alive and then get on to rounding up 15 christians to march them down to the beach to cut their heads off and throw them into the ocean to turn the water red with their blood…

this is the reality…

and I hate to say this but I feel the politics O and the Dims are playing with Bibi coming is to create more anti-Israel and anti-jewish feelings..

S, it’s hard to imagine what it would take for people to wake the hell up. It’s hard to believe even media approve of these reactions. I’m not surprised that the media networks do, but one would like to think that there exists among the reporters and pundits employed by MSM one or two rational people who recognize how inappropriate and bizarre the WH response to these killings by radical Islam is.

If so, they need to speak out, even if it means having to resign in order to do so. Media outlets that support Obama’s warped view of these terrorist acts bear some of the responsibility for continuing violence – just as Obama himself does.

If you subscribe to the view that judges are mere rabinical automotons with as much give and take as a scottish terrier watching a rathole when they are appointed by Obama, SUCH AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, then the prospects that the Fifth Circuit will uphold Judge Hanen seem marginally better–since 59% of them were appointed by Republicans, 20% by Democrats, an only 3 in that 29% were appointed by that fucking traitor Obama. In all candor and all sobriety, how can anyone have any respect for a jurist appointed by that loon? Speaking personally, I cannot see how. They are just as willing as he is to trash the constitution. It is sick.
—————–http://judgepedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit

I am well past the point where I believe federal appellate judges are objective, or that they are not partisan. There is far too much evidence to the contrary for me to believe that fairy tale. They vote for who appointed them. They dissent from their appointer, rarely if ever. Particularly those appointed by Democrat, but squishy Republicans like Bush 41 appoint loons like Souter–the stealth candidate who betrayed everyone he ever met—sort of like Obama.

free…can you imagine the radicals that just killed all those people watching TV or the internet and seeing and hearing Harf utter her BS…

can you just imagine their reaction to that little prim blonde haired girl with that squeaky voice saying the stuff she did…as she if has any idea what she is talking about in the real world as opposed to some pop psychology book she once read…

omg…pathetic…they must be laughing their asses off at her and the US govt…

Defenders of Obama’s DACA and DAPA programs often note that the Supreme Court has been very clear about the supremacy of the federal government over the states on immigration policy.

But, as Judge Hanen notes very early in his opinion, “deferred action,” the legal basis for Obama’s DACA and DAPA program, was never created by Congress. “Deferred action is not a status created or authorized by law or by Congress, nor has its properties been described in any relevant legislative act,” Hanen writes on page 15. “The Government must concede that there is no specific law or statute that authorizes DAPA,” he repeats on page 90.

Instead, Hanen notes, the Obama administration relies on two “general grants of discretion” in immigration law to support the DAPA program. But, as Hanen goes on to explain, if anything these statutes create separate and specific ways the Secretary of Homeland Security can offer legal status to illegal immigrants. But Obama’s DAPA program does not follow the processes these two other statutes created. Instead, DAPA created a brand new program out of whole cloth after Congress specifically debated and ultimately rejected new laws like Obama’s DAPA program.

The WH can’t even create jobs for Americans. They have to fake the jobs report every time, Even if it were not beyond comprehension that Harf made this statement in response to terrorism, it’s ridiculous to pretend that this Administration could help anyone with employment. The only place they’ve created jobs has been in the Obama Administration. He and his people have aides, flunkies, body men (hope Hillary gets one of those when she’s elected – Maybe Johnny Depp is available), shadow cabinet members, and the list goes on.

Maybe that’s what she meant. They’ll find work for them in the WH. I can see them initiating a new jobs campaign:: Jobs for Jihadists – campaign slogan: “Lets put them to work so they’ll be too busy to behead us”.

I’m actually going to do more research to see if this article is accurate. I haven’t seen this ridiculous statement by Harf reported anywhere else, and damn, it’s hard to believe anyone – even an Obama employee – could be irrational and insensitive enough to make that statement.

admin
February 18, 2015 at 12:06 am
———
Admin: I am so drunk right now that I posted my reaction on the wrong page. Hard apple cider is the culprit. Without hearing Judge Neopolitano’s prediction that the fifth circuit will not interfere with the ruling, I made a similar prediction based on the make-up of the 5th circuit where monster Obama has only 3 appointees/ accolytes on the bench as opposed to the 4th circuit which is a rubber stamp for his violations of the constitution because he has 7 appointee/accolytes. Right now, the cowardly John Roberts balls are starting to shrivel, because if Obama loses at the circuit court of appeals, they will be back to squeezing his balls, with the help of NYT. It worked on Obamacare when he fled from the room. Let’s see if it works this time. I am betting that it will, because in my view, the man is a coward.

But the injunction issued late on the President’s Day holiday by a federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush could just be the beginning of a rocky legal ride for the Obama White House.

Obama vowed to appeal the ruling, but that challenge will head to a court considered the most conservative federal appeals court in the country: the 5th Circuit. Its active judges are Republican by a 2-1 margin. [snip]

The White House’s best chance to get Obama’s immigration efforts back on track may lie with the Supreme Court, which issued a 5-3 ruling in 2012 backing strong discretion for the federal government in immigration enforcement. (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from that decision but seems likely to back Obama in the latest fight.)

The current dispute could wind up at the high court on an emergency basis within days, but administration officials were not specific about whether they will immediately demand that Obama’s immigration actions be allowed to resume.

“We are still in the process of looking at the opinion and trying to decide what steps we might take next,” Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters at the National Press Club Tuesday. “We have to look at this decision for what it is: it is the decision by one federal district court judge. I expect—have always expected that this is a matter that will ultimately be decided by a higher court, if not the Supreme Court then a federal court of appeals….This, I would view as an interim step in a process that has more to play out.”

Administration officials stepped gingerly around questions about whether the decision from U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen was political.

The White House insisted that Hanen’s ruling did not surprise them, even though it required cancellation for now of the first round of applications for an expanded program to allow immigrants who arrived illegally in the U.S. as children to get quasi-legal status and work permits. The judge’s order also came as the administration and its allies had a nationwide media blitz set Tuesday to urge illegal immigrants eligible for an expanded program to file applications starting Wednesday. [snip]

White House aides were long on criticism of Congressional Republicans for obstructing immigration reform legislation and short on direct rebuttal of the points Hanen made in his opinion. [snip]

“Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also entail bestowing benefits,” the judge wrote. “The DHS cannot reasonably claim that, under a general delegation to establish enforcement priorities , it can establish a blanket policy of non-enforcement that also awards legal presence and benefits to otherwise removable aliens…. It cannot, however, enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them.” [snip]

Critics of Obama’s immigration moves celebrated another aspect of Hanen’s ruling: his assertion that the administration’s claims that it will consider illegal applications on a case-by-case basis was “merely pretext.”

A Justice Department legal opinion the administration released in November to bolster Obama’s actions said it was “critical” that such immigration programs “require officials to evaluate each application for deferred action on a case-by-case basis, rather than granting deferred action automatically.”

Hanen insisted the administration wasn’t really doing that with the existing program for Dreamers. “It is clear that only 1-6% of applications have been denied at all, and all were denied for failure to meet the criteria, [for technical errors,] or for fraud,” he wrote. “There were apparently no denials for those who met the criteria.”

The judge said the administration ignored his request for data about denials. Statistics the administration sent to a reporter Tuesday did not indicate how many applications were denied on that basis.

“It is a rubber stamp,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said of the paperwork process U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services uses to consider applications. The legal challenge he launched to Obama’s 2012 executive action for Dreamers is still making its way through the courts. [snip]

While Hanen’s ruling has the spotlight for the moment because it led to a halt of Obama’s latest immigration actions, two other pending could buttress the president’s moves or cause further turmoil.

Another George W. Bush-appointed federal judge in Texas, Reed O’Connor, ruled in 2013 that Obama’s earlier program for Dreamers appeared to be “contrary to Congressional mandate.” However, the judge tossed the lawsuit on standing grounds. That case was argued before the 5th Circuit earlier this month before a panel of two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee and could be decided at any time.

The White House pointed repeatedly Tuesday to a decision a federal judge in Washington, Beryl Howell, issued in December which threw out a challenge Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio brought to Obama’s new immigration actions. Howell also said Arpaio lacked standing to mount a challenge, but she did so in a ruling that gave a broad view of the president’s immigration authority..

That case is also on appeal and is likely to be argued in front of the D.C. Circuit in the spring.

Kobach said Tuesday he’s convinced that Hanen’s expansive opinion has given momentum to the series of cases seeking to undo Obama’s immigration moves.

“It’s a very good opinion,” the Kansas official said. “This is very much a live legal battle.”

Wbboei, the fact that the Obama lawyers did not file an emergency request to the judge to be allowed to appeal to the appellate court or try to file directly with the Fifth Circuit for emergency relief in light of the fact that their illegal illegal immigration program was set to begin on Wednesday tells us all we need to know.

If they don’t file this Wednesday or at the very very latest on Thursday then they know they’re kaput. “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”.

The judge said the administration ignored his request for data about denials. Statistics the administration sent to a reporter Tuesday did not indicate how many applications were denied on that basis.

__________

How like Obama. Ignores a judge. Holder basically tells congress to “go to hell”. There’s no end to the arrogance and entitlement.

Admin, the assumption is that Obama will short cut it and go as directly to the supremes as possible? What are your thoughts about how SCOTUS will rule on this?
Also, can you or wbb clarify the “standing” issue. I know what it means, but how much discretion is allowed a judge in deciding whether or not a specific case has standing. The case that O’connor threw out in 2013 was thrown out because of lack of standing. Why was Hannen not compelled to do so, as well?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad Hanen heard the case, and I’m pleased about his judgement. However decisions regarding standing appear to be based solely on the subjective views of judges. It seems to be used as a loop-hole in some cases – a way for judges to refuse to hear particularly difficult, controversial cases. I don’t know the fine points of the law, but all citizens of this country would seem to have “standing”. The reason Americans who want to work can’t find jobs may be attributable to the shortage of jobs created by illegals in the country. Those who have jobs and are paying taxes should have standing based on the fact that their tax dollars are being used to fund services to people who have entered the country illegally.

My main question may have been obscured in my post above. i was asking if there are firm objective criteria for determining whether those who want to file a suit have standing or not? Presumably this may vary somewhat from state to state. But the cases in both Hannen and O’conner courts were in Texas.

I invite all Muslims that abuse their own woman/little girls and hate everyone that isn’t Muslim – to leave us outspoken American’s and move to France.

Thanks, but France is already 5000 miles closer to the source of danger than the US is, and these people don’t need an invite — they can just enter the EU from any available port and walk to France, weapons and all.

But one thing they cannot do legally is to abuse their own or anybody else’s girls and women. That, they can only do in the US.

Free,
There’s video of Harf saying those ridiculous statement’s regarding jobs for jihadists.
Harf, it rhymes with barf…send that’s all you need to know!
Can’t link right now, she looks about 22 and had big ass black glasses on to try to look smart…clearly doesn’t work.

French girls aren’t abused? You must have a very high stick to disregard that measurement.

You missed the word “legally” in my post at 3:45 am.

A lot of things are illegal in France that cannot be outlawed in the US. “A man’s home is his castle” and all that means there are venues in the US where nobody can intervene to prevent or punish abuse of girls, women and so forth.

Excision, for example, can be protected as “freedom of religion” just as circumcision is. Excision is outlawed in France. Now, it may be outlawed in some States too; but there are still those venues like the private home where it can be practiced with impunity on an infant who can’t talk for herself.

Thanks gonzotx. Hard to believe someone would say something that stupid. But, she does work for Obama.

Jobs for Jihadis – Given their unique soil-set, their opportunities are limited.

__________

Jes, Lots of illegal actions can be taken against someone who is unable to speak for or defend herself. Just because those actions occur, doesn’t mean they are legal.
Hell, murder can take place in a private home and the perpetrator may get away with it. But it’s still illegal.

freespirit
February 17, 2015 at 10:16 pm
She essentially says that the reason ISIS is beheading people and burning them alive is because there just aren’t enough jobs in the Middle East, and the US needs to focus getting jobs for them.
——————————————

If they are already dead from US firepower, then they won’t need jobs.

Jes, Lots of illegal actions can be taken against someone who is unable to speak for or defend herself. Just because those actions occur, doesn’t mean they are legal.

Hell, murder can take place in a private home and the perpetrator may get away with it. But it’s still illegal.

That’s exactly my point:

(1) Murder is illegal but you can’t do anything about it until the murder is done.

(2) But if murder is not illegal, you can’t do anything about it even after it is done.

(3) And if murder is illegal but you have nothing you can do about it after the fact, that is equivalent to legal murder.

So, all my comments are meant to say that France is in case (1) as concerns abuse of girls and women, and many other things such as free speech or illegal immigration; but that the US is in cases (2) or (3) in all these fields, defending itself behind “freedom of speech”, “freedom of religion” (1st amendment), “freedom to bear arms” (2nd amendment), “right to remain silent” (5th amendment), “right to privacy” (9th amendment).

France and European countries have all these freedoms; but there are rules and limits to them all that Americans hold in horror and contempt. The general American feeling is that “more rules = more government = less freedom” and vice versa. That’s why the Libetarian movement gets votes.

free…this whole thing with Harf blew up when she was on…of all places…Hardball with Chris Matthews…even he wasn’t falling for the absolute nonsense coming out of her mouth…this is what i mean about elitist…she thinks by being nice to these people they will come around to our/her way…they won’t – they have a completely different belief system … just like Hitler…they do not respect us, they want to kill us

“Firm objective criteria” are in the eye of the beholder when it comes to “standing” in cases as complex as this one which implicates all the tensions between federal and state governments. In one sense there is no precedent for “standing” in the Brownsville Texas immigration case because one of the arguments by plaintiffs is that such a sweeping use of executive power has never before been exercised.

As to the Texas judge, the opinions on what he has written in regards to “standing” vary as well. One of the first articles we read yesterday on a Republican/conservative website (HotAir) encapsulates the type of thinking/analysis that writers indulge in which we do not agree with. The initial HotAir analysis was that the opinion was weak on the question of standing:

As Brenan notes, there are a few reasons to not get overly excited or read too much into this ruling. While Judge Hanen has issued an injunction, the Feds will be appealing this morning and the Fifth Circuit could issue a stay (essentially putting the hold on hold) in very short order. This might take a couple of weeks at most, or possibly even sooner.

Also, as with so many of the cases we’ve seen where congressional leaders have challenged the executive branch, the issue of standing will be a huge question. Josh Blackman’s analysis reveals that the ruling is well over one hundred pages long and more than a third of it deals with the question of whether or not the plaintiffs have standing to bring the case.. He concludes that they do, but the fact that he spends so much time justifying it rather than moving on to the merits of the case may be an indicator that he expects that aspect of it to be challenged.

That’s an analysis which quotes another analysis by two knowledgeable people – which we entirely disagree with. To our eyes the fact that the judge invested so much time on the question of standing is not a weakness. What we saw was a canny judge blocking off the possibility of a Fifth Circuit override of his decision as well as blocking the Supreme Court from such a course of action.

So who is right in your view? Is it us with our brilliant analysis of what the judge is up to or is it those two smart guys? Place your bets. Of course we think we were right and subsequent analysis from just about everyone is moving in our direction. (And we have not mentioned before that this wily judge has set a conference for February 27 on how to proceed in the case – which just happens to be the day DHS funding runs out in Washington.) Notice also what we wrote to Wobbei about the lack of an emergency appeal. The HotAir analysis, like us, expected an immediate appeal to the Fifth Circuit that very morning. That fact that there is still no appeal or request for a stay tells us much more than all the paper generated in the White House p.r. flack rooms.

As to why the O’Connor and Hanen decisions came from Texas, that is no surprise. Plaintiffs go to where they think they have the best chance of victory and because Texas is a border state with a majority Republican circuit it is logical that plaintiffs would file cases there. The plaintiffs in the case we are discussing took a big chance in filing there because at the time they had a 50%-50% chance of getting a liberal Democrat judge. They lucked out and the lottery for this case was filled by Hanen.

As part of our stream of thought response to your questions we’ll end with one final observation. We look at these legal cases not only by reading the briefs but also by reading the zeitgeist. We believe that the judicial branch is increasingly concerned about Obama’s executive diktats and how they distort our legal/political system. Even the “liberal” justices on the high court have joined in decisions to discipline Obama. So our thinking is that the courts and the legislative branch have joined in an unstated alliance against the executive. This colors our thinking and is why we do not think the Supreme Court will rescue Obama on this immigration debacle (nor on ObamaCare).

The Islamic State’s (ISIS/ISIL) established “morality police” reportedly attacked a woman in eastern Syria because her eyes were exposed.

Women under the caliphate must dress conservatively, following the protocols issued in various ISIS publications concerning the behavior of women. This includes a full face veil. The majority of women shown in pictures and videos are covered from head to toe in all black. The ISIS morality gangs in Albuhamai, Syria, found a woman wearing a full face veil that they deemed to have left her eyes too exposed. The police also arrested two men who attempted to protect her.

In July, the jihadists passed extreme restrictions on women. A full-face veil is required, and the hands and feet must be covered. Females must not wear clothes that “hug the body.”

“The conditions imposed on her clothes and grooming was only to end the pretext of debauchery resulting from grooming and overdressing,” said the ISIS publication. “This is not a restriction on her freedom but to prevent her from falling into humiliation and vulgarity or to be a theatre for the eyes of those who are looking.”

“Anyone who is not committed to this duty and is motivated by glamour will be subject to accountability and severe punishment to protect society from harm and to maintain the necessities of religion and protect it from debauchery.”

An all-female Islamic State brigade is also known to also enforce Sharia law within the caliphate. In December, they used a bear trap known as a “biter” on women’s breasts who defied the protocols of the terrorist group. The torture device was used on one woman who was arrested in public for breastfeeding and her niqab was transparent. After the jihadists took over Mosul, Iraq, they demanded all shopowners place a veil on mannequins, even the males, since “the human form is not depicted in statues or artwork.”

“This is not a restriction on her freedom” rather “it is to protect society from harm”.

As part of our stream of thought response to your questions we’ll end with one final observation. We look at these legal cases not only by reading the briefs but also by reading the zeitgeist. We believe that the judicial branch is increasingly concerned about Obama’s executive diktats and how they distort our legal/political system. Even the “liberal” justices on the high court have joined in decisions to discipline Obama. So our thinking is that the courts and the legislative branch have joined in an unstated alliance against the executive. This colors our thinking and is why we do not think the Supreme Court will rescue Obama on this immigration debacle (nor on ObamaCare).

——–
You sure know a bunch about the law and also politics.

As far as ‘standing’ goes. Why isn’t there a clear cut definition of the rule? Being so ambiguous, from one judge to another seems like a built in loophole of the law.

I remember the whole birth certificate issue was shot down by everyone that wanted to see Barry’s real BC because no one qualified as having standing.

When deemed with a blanket ‘without standing’, corruption is given a free pass without being considered by the court.

It would be another thing if the courts at least followed the same definition of ‘standing’.

Wbboei, the fact that the Obama lawyers did not file an emergency request to the judge to be allowed to appeal to the appellate court or try to file directly with the Fifth Circuit for emergency relief in light of the fact that their illegal illegal immigration program was set to begin on Wednesday tells us all we need to know.

If they don’t file this Wednesday or at the very very latest on Thursday then they know they’re kaput. “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”.
—-
Your legal predictions here, and on the broader point is excellent.

I see in the lengthy discussion about standing a judge innoculating himself against that challenge, as opposed to someone running from it. Hot Air has got it all wrong on that point. They confuse strength with weakness. Shades of the successful defense by the marines of Khe Sanh during the Tet offensive which broke the enemy but which our beloved big media reported as a strategic loss and began called for the pull-out which caused hundreds of thousands of our supporters to be butchered. Yes, even in those days, big media was doing the devils work. The paradigmatic marine leader (there were more than one of course) General Lew Walt who I met at Annapolis, was clear on this point, that the left wing big media in this country snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Well, then Hot Air, lets not make a habit of confusing victory with defeat. If you are tempted to do that, think back to Khe Sanh.

Antonin Scalia contends that judges do their jobs, and the only real place they differ is in judicial philosophy. If it were only true. There is no more accurate predictor of what a judge appointed by Obama will do than who appointed him/her, if the issue in dispute in any conceivable way affects Obama. Their duty to him is higher by far than their duty to the constitution.

As there are sine on this blog who believe in the constitution and vote for someone who takes it seriously like Cruz are . . . what was that felicious word you used jeswezy–oh, that is right, “crack pot”, it is useful to look back to the 2007 blog by Paddy4Hill who wrote from China. She warned us about the rise of a new class of billionaire committed to globalization, who were poised to turn our democracy into an oligarchy.

The only bulwark we have against that assault on freedom is the system of government which the founding fathers which limits the power of government. REMEMBER THIS if you remember nothing else jesewey: Behind every argument that the Constitution is irrelevant lies an agenda to escape its restrictions and to disenfrancise the American People. If you do not understand that because you have been imbibing too much French Wine, you had best sober up, because you are on the verge of becoming the very thing you feel so superior to–a (Paris) crackpot—and I don’t mean Paris Texas.

President Barack Obama may have reiterated Martin Luther King Jr.’s praise of India as “Gandhi’s land,” a place that provided inspiration for the American civil rights leader, but a sapling the president planted at the Mahatma’s memorial during a recent trip to India has reportedly withered in only 10 days.

The baby tree, a ficus religiosa adjacent to a still-thriving tree planted by President Bill Clinton in 2000, has lost all of its leaves and is on its deathbed. The plant’s demise ultimately came from neglect, India Today reported, and not inclement weather, as the gardener has claimed.

Obama planted the baby tree on Jan. 25 during his visit to India, where he waschief guest of Prime Minister Narendra Modi during India’s Republic Day celebrations.

The failure of a given law to repress a given practice is no reason not to have the law at all
———-
On the contrary, its a pretty good reason not to have the law.

If the law does no curtail achieve its primary objective, is so broadly drawn that it sweeps in legitimate conduct, and has a cost associated with it which society pays for which outweighs the benefit, then we are better off without it.

And where that law creates or prohibits an establishment of religion, curtails free speech (even as voltaire said the speech we hate) and/or prohibits the right of the people to peacefully assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances, then that law should be DOA. It should be defied.

Those rights may not carry much weitht in decadent Europe, but over here they are still important.

Look, the stuff about the law wasn’t preaching; it was just the discussion between freespirit and me about the difference between how the French (or Europeans) handle the stuff and how it cannot be handled in the US. OK, I’ll drop it.

About “how this religion treats it’s female gender,” on the other hand, I think we’d better not get into that. There’s nothing in Islam that requires excision, for example. It’s an African practice.

We don’t know much about Islam. I thought we decided to drop that discussion a long time ago.

ISIS has threatened to flood Europe with half a million migrants from Libya in a ‘psychological’ attack against the West, it was claimed today.

Transcripts of telephone intercepts published in Italy claim to provide evidence that ISIS is threatening to send 500,000 migrants simultaneously out to sea in hundreds of boats in a ‘psychological weapon’ against Europe if there is military intervention against them in Libya.

Many would be at risk of drowning with rescue services unable to cope. But authorities fear that if numbers on this scale arrived, European cities could witness riots.

Separately, the militants hope to cement their control of Libya then cross the Mediterranean disguised as refugees, according to letters seen by Quilliam the anti-terror group, reported by the Telegraph.

just thinking how easy it would be for Isis killers to use reverse psychology on O, Holder and Harf and pretend to be ‘good guys’ or even the type that O & Harf just cannot wait to “save”…and then boom…they go all beheading once in the USA…

Not that Trump would actually run, but I sure do agree with most of what he said here…

[snip]

Trump took square aim at two potential candidates for the 2016 GOP nomination who weren’t in attendance, suggesting it would be an error for Republicans to nominate either 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney or former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

“It can’t be Mitt, because Mitt ran and failed,” Trump said.

Trump said he liked Romney, formerly a governor of Massachusetts, but he suggested Romney’s infamous “47 percent” comments and his affiliation with a Massachusetts health care reform plan akin to Obamacare should disqualify him.

Plus, Romney “choked” in 2012, failing to unseat Obama in an election that Republicans could have won, Trump argued.

“You can’t have Bush,” Trump added. “The last thing we need is another Bush.”

Trump criticized Bush’s support of common core federal education standards, and he panned Bush’s comment that many illegal immigrants come to the United States as an “act of love” to help their families.

“Half of these people are criminals,” Trump said. “They’re coming for a lot of other reasons, and it’s not love.”

Trump also suggested the unpopularity Jeb Bush’s brother, former President George W. Bush, helped usher President Obama into office: “His brother really gave us Obama.”

Trump offered an ambitious preview of his prospective presidential agenda. ” If I run for president, and if I win, I would totally succeed in creating jobs, defeating ISIS, and stopping the Islamic terrorists… reducing the budget deficit… securing our southern border… stopping nuclear weapons in Iran and elsewhere… saving Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without cutting it down to the bone… repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something far better.”

Trump deviated somewhat from the GOP’s fixation on entitlement reform, warning Republicans that “Democrats are eating your lunch on this issue.”

He said he would not cut Social Security, because people deserve to receive the benefits they’ve earned, but he would bring the system back into solvency by making the U.S. “rich again.”

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said President Obama was “in effect” creating immigration law and declared the president can’t “set policy without the Congress participating” on Tuesday’s “Hardball.”

After panelist Jonathan Capehart argued “we wouldn’t be in this position if Congress had moved on that comprehensive immigration bill that passed the Senate in June 2013,” in a discussion on the president’s executive action Matthews posed the question, “do you think the president can act just because the Congress screws up? He can’t replace the Congress, you know, you fight the–as somebody said, you fight the battle with the army you have, all he’s got is this Congress, so he says ‘well, if they can’t do the job, I’ll do it,’ but that’s not so easy under our Constitution. You can do certain things along the margins, but can you create immigration law? Which is, in effect, what he’ll be doing if Congress doesn’t act.”

Matthews did express his displeasure with GOP attempts to refuse to fund the President’s executive action, he added “he [Obama] still can’t get away with what he wants to do, which is set policy without the Congress participating. It is a system of three branches of government, and it’s very tricky.”

Matthews did express his displeasure with GOP attempts to refuse to fund the President’s executive action, he added “he [Obama] still can’t get away with what he wants to do, which is set policy without the Congress participating. It is a system of three branches of government, and it’s very tricky.”

—-
Yup, when Tingles is the voice of reason on the MSM you know the country has gone to the dogs.

Nuggets culled irresponsibly – or not – from the former Brian Williams show:

Al Roker avoided referring to the frigid WX about to descend upon my region as Polar Vortex. Instead using maps and a huge red arrow, Al clearly showed it originated in Siberia. Showed the path of the cold across the Pacific Ocean not once but twice. I took it to mean Putin is playing with Obama’s climate change.

Next I string together two phrases I heard: “ISIS spreading like a virus across ME” with
“its not something which can be droned away”
And in that I find some comeuppance toward The Great One in DC. From Richard Engel’s report tonight.

Then this post which caught my eye earlier today:

Obama’s Anti-Netanyahu Boycott Is Collapsing | FrontPage Magazine
… Despite two weeks of intense anti-Netanyahu leaks, insults, and pressure, the White House has so far succeeded in persuading only a handful of Democratic members of Congress to stay away from the speech.
… Another major crack in the anti-Netanyahu boycott effort appeared this weekend in the form of a message from Elie Wiesel in a full page advertisement in the New York Times and Washington Post, sponsored by “This World: The Values Network.”

The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate has always been something of a moral compass for the Jewish people–certainly far more than the two or three Jewish organizational leaders who have been quoted as opposing Netanyahu’s visit. We all remember Wiesel bravely confronting President Reagan over his visit to the Bitburg cemetery, not to mention his speaking out on so many other important issues over the years. So Wiesel’s words in the Times and Post ads carry particular weight.

Wiesel announced that he will personally attend Netanyahu’s speech. He appealed to President Obama and Vice President Biden to “put aside the politics” and hear what Israel’s prime minister has to say ….

Jeswezey, I don’t know what the hell we’re arguing about. You are in a country where people can be prosecuted for racial slurs and other hate speech. You like it. It hasn’t stopped you from insulting Texans, and a couple more groups it seems – though I can’t recall exactly which ones, so maybe not. It hasn’t stopped the French from anti-Semitic slurs. I’m sure other groups are insulted, as well.

We’re in a country that does not yet prosecute people for racial slurs and hate speech, although our government does accuse whites of mistreating blacks – solely because they’re black. This hasn’t happened to the extent that the government has insinuated. The non-president has incited hate speech and actions against Jews. He has attempted to vilify Christians for the Crusades, and has been pro-muslim, refusing even to label radical Islamist terrorists as Islamists.
Even if we had a law against hate speech, Obama wouldn’t be prosecuted.

The reality is prosecution of hate speech hasn’t stopped it in France. Not having a law against it hasn’t stopped it in the US. Given the choice of more government regulation or less, most of us would choose the latter, I believe.

It is very common for one group to feel superior to another. It’s simply a human failing. It occurs among insecure people especially, as well as among people who honestly think that their group is superior in every way, as in the case of the limo-libs.

If you’re happy in France, good for you. We won’t report you for calling Texans “crack-pots” or whatever you said. We’re here and we’re happy. It’s win-win.

I still say, those Rona people in France who were rounded up, forced to board a plan, and were flown to Romania would have much preferred to have been the target of hate speech than the target of surprise deportation.

On the question of integrity as it relates to congress, I commend to your attention a couple videos of a speech given by Lt. General and subsequent commandant of the Marine Corps Charles Krulak (USNA-’64) on the whole question of leadership, illustrated by battlefield crises and the moral lessons that emerge from same. He delivered this speech at Annapolis twenty years ago, but the themes of integrity and accountability that it invokes are timeless. The source of these attributes of character is not career advancement, or the lowest common denominator of the common herd, but the Constitution. To a bon vivante like jewezy who thinks the constitution is for crack pots none of this matters. But for those of us who hope to preserve what prior generations fought and died for, and bequeathed to us, this is a serious business. If you are interested, take the time to review these. They may not change your life, but they cannot help but change or inspire your thinking as they did mine. I do not know General Krulak, but I wish I did. He is true leader–and unlike most celebrities and members of congress, he as his head on straight. (Note: I can only imagine what he would think of messiah obama, and big media whores that suck his dick for a living who are the antithesis of leadership and the epitome of cheap, tawdry celebrity.)

In a not very surprising move, Marie Harf refuses to backdown in the face of criticism of her suggestion that the US should focus on getting jobs for terrorists. Her steadfastness reveals an unwillingness to learn. Even though her comment was widely criticized by people who know a thing or two about the issue, there was no indication that Harf considered the possibly that she might not have all of the correct answers. The person who never re-thinks her position, never considers the views of others, especially others who are knowledgable about an issue, will never be wise or learned. Ms. Harf is in no danger of becoming either.

The arrogance that drips from her words is almost tangible. In this sentence – “‘How do you get at the root causes of this? It might be too nuanced an argument for some,’ Harf insisted” – In stating that the issues might be “too nuanced an argument for some”, Harf is saying some of you Americans are too effing stupid to understand. I’m not wrong. You’re just not bright enough to realize it.

No doubt when Ms. Harf grows up, she will realize that she was a little too full of herself. Being young, inexperienced, and wrong is not unforgivable. But being young, inexperienced, and wrong – and the second highest member of State Department is not only unforgivable, it’s downright dangerous.
_______________

From Daily Mail UK:

State Department STILL under fire after spokeperson doubles down on ‘jobs’ for jihadis – not ‘killing them’ – and says it’s ‘too nuanced an argument for some’

Marie Harf, the State Department’s no. 2 spokeswoman, said Monday night that ‘lack of opportunity for jobs’ in the Middle East should be US focus

She refused to back down, saying the Obama administration is considering ‘How do you get them to not pick up that AK-47?’

‘How do you get at the root causes of this? It might be too nuanced an argument for some,’ Harf insisted

‘Countering violent extremism’ conference continues in Washington but the White House insists ‘we are not treating these people as part of a religion’

Obama seemed to throw Harf under the bus, saying ‘poverty alone doesn’t cause somebody to become a terrorist’

‘We cannot win this war by killing them, we cannot kill our way out of this war,’ Harf had said Monday night of the ISIS terror army

Donna Brazil kicked me out of the Dimocrat party in 2008. I don’t regret it. That said, the other side is just horrible. Conservatives are only marginally better than Islamic fundamentalists. Not the violent extremists, but rather the Imams and Islamic jurists and scholars that interpret and enforce Sharia law. When the politicking ends and the governing begins, those people really fail. They are not to be trusted either. It screams to the depth this country has sunk to to see them as a viable governing alternative to the idiot Dimocrats. We can kooo and kaww about who is in the new GOP and what the new GOP looks like and what they are doing to counter teh one, but those guys are smoking some serious peyote with their cigars.

Oklahoma lawmakers aim to halt Advanced Placement history course

From article…..Emphasis mine

(Reuters) – Oklahoma lawmakers are trying to block funding for Advanced Placement U.S. history courses, saying the curriculum is not patriotic enough, as they aim to join others in halting a program designed to prepare top students for college.

A new framework for the course introduced in 2012 has sparked controversy. Cultural conservatives blast the changes they see as questioning American exceptionalism, while supporters say the course offers students a balanced way to analyze how American history has unfolded.

This week, a bill to cut funding for Advanced Placement U.S. History courses in the state passed an Oklahoma House committee along party lines, with 11 Republican voting for the measure and 4 Democrats opposed.

Last year, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution calling on the College Board, which administers the test, to revise the curriculum. The party said it sees the framework as a “radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history.”

In September, the Texas State Board of Education, which is dominated by Republicans, requested the College Board to rewrite the AP U.S. history curriculum.

In Colorado, hundreds of students walked out of class to protest a move by conservative school board members proposed changing the U.S. history course.

In Utah last week, a republican lawmaker publicly mulled the idea of outlawing yoga pants because they are too distracting. After a good public shaming of the idea, he later said he was just kidding. So I ask, where in this world do we see a government controlling with law what women wear? Where do we see a state changing the content of the curriculum educating the next generation to suit an ideological position that only a radical segment truly believes? What is the difference between a cultural conservative and a member of the religious council in Iran or the ruling class in Saudi Arabia?

TheRock
February 18, 2015 at 11:53 pm
Donna Brazil kicked me out of the Dimocrat party in 2008. I don’t regret it.

—-
TheRock, don’t give Brazillenut so much credit, WE WALKED OUT of the Dim party when Hillary was cheated and knifed in the back.

I agree, the Rethugs have nothing to be proud of…so far. They were voted in because the Dims are so darn rotten that they have lost 18 million voters (well, at least millions of us)…and now the public is expecting the GOP to grow up and start acting like competent adults that represent We The People.

TheRock, don’t give Brazillenut so much credit, WE WALKED OUT of the Dim party when Hillary was cheated and knifed in the back.

God luv you Shadow, you are SO right! I stand corrected. We DID walk out when they stabbed Hill. Thank you for reminding me of that!! 🙂

And while I am a teacher, its not in the classroom. I am a youth soccer coach. 12 year old boys here in Texas. The perfect age (I’ve always felt) to hone the basic skills and gain the first true understanding of the game happens between 10 and 13. So that is the age I like to coach.

A coach for young boys, that’s awesome. As a single mom of a son, having good role models for our sons is a gift. For my son, it was his high school computer teacher that was an ex-marine, brought his black lab to class…the boys loved the dog and the administration hated it. The second person that really helped my son was his ex-marine, black belt, Karate instructor. Bless you too for helping these young boys that need a good man on their side.

Rock, we did walk out. Brazillenut assured us that the Dim Party had no need of the votes of the old, the white, the blue-collar, the backbone of the Big Tent until 2008, when we were proclaimed by The Nut to be irrelevant and far from cool enough to hang with the “new coalition”. Poor Donna. She thought her new coalition would last forever.

Surprise Donna – The new dims are gone. The old ones will return only long enough to vote for Hillary. Sometimes karma just sucks.

S: I was looking for more info on Gigi, I found an interesting interview with Leslie Caron, saw her and Mel Ferrer in Lili and its main song—the song of love is a sad song. I could not hear the thing so I looked for another version of it, and I found a really good one by of all people Richard Chamberlain who I knew only as an actor. I did not realize what a good voice he had for the crooner style, which I am partial to.

wbboei…these movies, especially the musicals, make me so nostalgic for when idealism seemed so possible…

life seemed so innocent then…not so harsh, mean and barbaric as it has ironically become in the 21st century with the O era…when i was a youngster then I thought the world would get better and better…instead we are going back into medieval savage times…

Issues Temporary Injunctive Order — Is this a way out for Republicans on DHS funding
childhood immigration flood

In a decision which is to have a profound impact on both the immigration debate and the currently stalled funding of the Department of Homeland Security, a federal court judge in Texas has issued a Temporary Restraining Injunctive Order preventing implementation of Obama’s Immigration executive action. The Order and 123-page Opinion are embedded in full below.

From a political perspective, if Obama is enjoined from enforcing his immigration executive action, how can Congress fund an illegal act? Or if it were funded, thereby relieving the current continuing resolution stalemate, Obama could not enforce it. Either way, this may provide Congress a way out of the jam just days before the funding deadline.

What this allows Republicans to do, is pass a 30 day spending bill without any limitations on the argument that the immigration plan cannot be acted upon anyway, and wait and see how the courts rule. IF the courts refuse to put the injunction on hold, or if the courts uphold the injunction on the merits, then there is no need to worry about defunding the executive action. If an appeals court reverses, then the Republican leadership can say that it has already been upheld as lawful so there is no legal basis for the claim it is unconstitutional. This could be a victory at least to get over the current impasse, although it may not be a long term solution.

The case involves 26 states (originally 17) led by Texas.

Here is part of the TRO:

The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, Deputy Chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAP A”) program as set out in the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson’s memorandum dated November 20, 2014 (“DAPA memorandum”), pending a final resolution of the merits of this case or until a further order of this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court.

The Court frames the issue in the case as follows:

The ultimate question before the Court is: Do the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, give the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to take the action at issue in this case? [Opinion, at 4]

It took the court over 100 pages to get to the answer: No.

The Court rejected that the immigration action was mere prosecutorial discretion, since the action bestowed benefits upon illegal aliens not provided by law:

Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also
entail bestowing benefits. Non-enforcement is just that-not enforcing the law.67 Nonenforcement does not entail refusing to remove these individuals as required by the law and then providing three years of immunity from that law, legal presence status, plus any benefits that may accompany legal presence under current regulations. This Court seriously doubts that the Supreme Court, in holding non-enforcement decisions to be presumptively unreviewable, anticipated that such “non-enforcement” decisions would include the affirmative act of bestowing multiple, otherwise unobtainable benefits upon an individual. [Opinion, at 87]

The Court also found, as I have long argued, that this was not the mere exercise of discretion in implementing existing law:

The Government has pointed this Court to no law that gives the DHS such wide-reaching discretion to turn 4.3 million individuals from one day being illegally in the country to the next day having lawful presence.

The DHS’ job is to enforce the laws Congress passes and the President signs (or at least does not veto). It has broad discretion to utilize when it is enforcing a law. Nevertheless, no statute gives the DHS the discretion it is trying to exercise here. 77 Thus, Defendants are without express authority to do so by law, especially since by Congressional Act, the DAPA recipients are illegally present in this country. As stated before, most, if not all, fall into one of two categories. They either illegally entered the country, or they entered legally and then overstayed their permission to stay. Under current law, regardless of the genesis of their illegality, the Government is charged with the duty of removing them. [Opinion, at 96]

DHS was effectively changing the law:

While DAP A does not provide legal permanent residency, it certainly provides a legal benefit in the form of legal presence (plus all that it entails )-a benefit not otherwise available in immigration laws. [Opinion, at 110]

The DAP A program clearly represents a substantive change in immigration policy. It is a program instituted to give a certain, newly-adopted class of 4.3 million illegal immigrants not only “legal presence” in the United States, but also the right to work legally and the right to receive a myriad of governmental benefits to which they would not otherwise be entitled. 102 It does more than “supplement” the statute; if anything, it contradicts the INA. It is, in effect, a new law. DAPA turns its beneficiaries’ illegal status (whether resulting from an illegal entry or from illegally overstaying a lawful entry) into a legal presence. It represents a massive change in immigration practice, and will have a significant effect on, not only illegally-present immigrants,but also the nation’s entire immigration scheme and the states who must bear the lion’s share of its consequences. [Opinion, at 111]

The court rejected the argument, which we hear frequently in the media, that past presidential actions somehow could be used to justify Obama’s conduct, essentially holding that two wrongs don’t make a right:

Defendants argue that historical precedent of Executive-granted deferred action justifies DAPA as a lawful exercise of discretion. In response, the Plaintiffs go to great lengths to distinguish past deferred action programs from the current one, claiming each program in the past was substantially smaller in scope. The Court need not decide the similarities or differences between this action and past ones, however, because past Executive practice does not bear directly on the legality of what is now before the Court. Past action previously taken by the DHS does not make its current action lawful. [Opinion, at 100]

One interesting footnote — literally a footnote (no. 2) is on terminology:

The Court uses the phrases “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” interchangeably. The word “immigrant” is not used in the manner in which it is defined in Title 8 of the United States Code unless it is so designated. The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase “illegal alien” offensive. The Court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2497 (2012).

don’t know if anyone here has had the opportunity to hear Asra Nomani on any of the panels discussing radical islamists…it is extraordinary to hear all the libs spouting the usual O/Harf line making excuses and trying to deflect from the reality and then all of a sudden she cuts through all their nonsense from a progressive muslim woman’s position and brings the conversation back to reality

I have seen her a few times lately and tonight i saw her shut down that imbecile on msnbc, ayman mohyeldin and howard dean when she gave them a big dose of reality on the motives of Isis and what their world plan is and how they treat women instead of the gobbly gook that is coming out of the O admin and from the left

Continuing paragraph cited: …Mulvaney encouraged fellow Republicans to win the moral argument about immigration reform, instead of allowing the issue to be frozen and polarized. “If you hear us talking 10 percent about the Constitution and 90 percent about something else, that’s why,” he said. Gowdy described the ways that Democrats had undermined his committee—mostly by portraying it as heartlessly partisan….

You are clearly in denial and I don’t want to play games trying to get you to dig your head out of the sand.

Look, dear, It’s uncharacteristic of you to butt into a conversation just to shut me up and change the subject. Bad hair day? Some Obot at work forced you take a slice of headcheese?

Since the last thread, gonzotx, freespirit and I had been talking about the law and its enforcement in a “society of law”, because HRC has some definite ideas on the subject and will most likely be talking about it in her campaign.

Now, if you prefer to talk about how different religions treat each other, or treat girls and women, you’re going to have to do it with someone who knows more about Islam than you or I do.

On the surface of the subject, without getting into the nitty-gritty of religious dogma, I would say that the Islamic State and Boko Harem have a very different way of treating women — and men! — than what you find in Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are already pretty conservative Muslim countries.

Beyond these three countries, you have the Muslim countries stretching across North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, and Turkey, then Iraq & Turkmenistan, the UAE and Qatar, Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia, where women are treated pretty much the way they are in the Western World, which ain’t all that great, I’ll admit, but Islam is not beating these hundreds of millions of women back into the Stone Age, any more than Christianity is.

S, I didn’t catch the discussion, but would love to have someone speaking sensibly about this.

Speaking of the ME, the WH has decided to increase the number of Syrian refugees the country accepts to 10,000 annually.

________________

US to accept thousands of Syrian refugees for resettlement

US Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration Anne Richard says the United States will dramatically increase the number of Syrian refugees allowed to resettle permanently in the United States from about 350 this year to close to 10,000 annually as the crisis grinds on into its fifth year.

Obama and some Dims content to throw a hissy-fit about Bibi addressing congress. In this excerpt from a speech Netanyahu made at the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem explains why he sees this as an opportunity he can’t afford to miss.

_________________

“Why am I going to Washington? Because, as prime minister of Israel, it’s my obligation to do everything in my power to prevent the conclusion of a bad deal that could threaten the survival of the State of Israel.

The current proposal to Iran would endanger Israel. It would enable Iran to build its first nuclear device within an unacceptably short time. And it would allow Iran to build an industrial capability to enrich uranium that could provide the fuel for many bombs in the coming years.

A regime that openly calls for Israel’s destruction would thus have finally the means to realize its genocidal aims.

Now mind you, I’m not opposed to any deal with Iran. I’m opposed to a bad deal with Iran. And I believe this is a very bad deal.

I’m certainly not opposed to negotiations. On the contrary: No country has a greater stake in the peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear question than does Israel.
But the current proposal won’t solve the problem. It will perpetuate and aggravate the problem. It would provide a path for Iran to become a nuclear power. And so it’s very important that I speak about this in Washington.

Why am I going to Congress? Because Israel has been offered the chance to make its case on this crucial issue before the world’s most important parliament; because a speech before Congress allows Israel to present its position to the elected representatives of the American people and to a worldwide audience; because Congress has played a critical role in applying pressure to the Iranian regime — the very pressure that brought the ayatollahs to the negotiating table in the first place, and because Congress may well have a say on any final deal.

I think the real question is: How could any responsible Israeli prime minister refuse to speak to Congress on a matter so important to Israel’s survival?

Fucking Obama . . . thousands are being murdered and all this prick does is obsess over political correctness. He-is-Satan. No question about it.

—————-

Senator Ted Cruz has harsh words for President Barack Obama, saying in an interview airing Wednesday that he’s “an apologist” for terrorists.

Speaking with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, the Texas Republican and potential presidential candidate was asked whether he agreed with the argument that referring to ISIS as Islamic terrorists would undermine efforts to get Muslim leaders to help the U.S. fight the group.

“What undermines the global effort is for the president of the United States to be an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists,” Cruz shot back.

“What undermines the global effort is for the president of the United States to be an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists.”
Senator Ted Cruz

“This bizarre, politically correct doublespeak is simply not befitting a commander-in-chief whose first obligation should be to protect the United States of America,” he also said.

The comments came after Obama said at a White House summit on combatting extremism on Wednesday that terrorists put forward “a lie” that they fight in the name of their faith.

“They are not religious leaders,” Obama said. “They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

Profiles In Courage. Not.
Virginia Democrats Flee Chamber Twice Rather Than Vote on Resolution in Support of Israel
Published on Feb 6, 2015
Democrats in the Virginia House of Delegates flee the chamber TWICE rather than cast a vote on a resolution expressing support for the State of Israel. There are 100 members of the House, with 32 Democrats.

Well, hot damn! Break out the champaign! Crank up the music! We are gonna have ANOTHER good year according to Barack. Another one!

If you don’t remember last year as a good one, that may have been because it was too “nuanced” – a nuanced year, and you’re just not bright enough to recognize how good it was! Another reason cited for the failure of Americans to realize how good the years have become under Barack’s administration – increasing alcohol consumption by Americans unable to handle the stress of these good Barack years. You probably just blacked out during the good part.

In a follow-up report it was revealed that O’s hallucinations were getting more frequent – but happier!

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) bashed the White House’s summit this week on countering extremism as failing to address the threat of radical Islam.

“If you look at some of the conversations that have happened during this summit and the president’s speech that we heard just a few minutes ago, still I think it is a divergent from where we need to be focused,” she said on CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

(snip)

Gabbard, a combat veteran who served in Iraq, has repeatedly criticized the White House for not defining militants from ISIS as Islamic extremists. She said that the summit’s “broad focus” is further proof that the administration doesn’t understand America’s true enemy.

It wasn’t the fact that Rezko gave him massive political contributions and helped him buy his house.

I’ll have to remember that little non-sequitur.

Sure, it’s a non-sequitur; but not in my head. I agree with all that about the Obola-Rezko corruption; but Obola doesn’t see it that way. To him, Rezko is a good guy just like all the Muslims who came to pray when they heard the call to prayers that Obola once loved.

It is incomprehensible to me that will all the radical “islamists” out there burning people alive and actually marching people to the sea and cutting their heads off…that O and what now stands for the Democratic party would choose NOW to literally…

turn their backs on Israel…and the PM of Israel coming to speak to the US Congress about their fears and concerns re: Iran and the current state of affairs because of the threats of radical islamists…

NOW…should be the time to welcome someone who represents that small country that is smack in the middle of all this turmoil and danger…

radical islamists who are NOW…today…this month…last month…etc saying point blank that they want Death to Israel…Death to America…they are declaring that they are heading to Rome next to take on the Cross and kill Christians…

with all of this in plain sight for the whole world to see…we have O and the Dims talking about getting these ‘misguided young men’ jobs and opportunities…

and O and the Dims getting ready to outdo themselves in being naive, petty, politically spiteful and ignorant…

what the hell will O and the Dims do when Israel or the US is finally attacked by these radicals that are hell bent on killing us all, raping the women and chopping off the heads of the men and children

this is so disgusting…as my ever so smart mother would say “can’t they see the writing on the wall?”

OK, I’ll go along with injunctive relief. In the present case, injunctive relief amounts to putting off the court’s decision as to plaintiffs’ standing and the merits of the case, for a few months.

For some reason, the decision admin posted is cut off right in the middle of the discussion on page 50, so the debate on the merits is incomplete and we don’t even get to see the Judge’s name.

However, right on the first and second pages of the decision, we have a full description of the illegal immigration situation “described by the United States Supreme Court decades ago.” Though no specific reference is given, the description apparently dates from 1981.

This description is worth a full reprint here, because it points to exactly the problems of “society of law”, extreme interpretations of the bill of rights, and the difficulty — the impossibility, actually — of enforcing the standing immigration laws:

“Sheer incapability or lax enforcement of the laws barring entry into this country, coupled with the failure to establish an effective bar to the employment of undocumented aliens, has resulted in the creation of a substantial ‘shadow population’ of illegal migrants — numbering in the millions — within our borders.”

“….In presenting to both the Senate and the House several Presidential proposals for reform of the immigration laws — including one to ‘legalize’ many of the illegal entrants currently residing in the United States by creating for them a special statute under the immigration laws — the Attorney General noted that this subclass is largely composed of persons with a permanent attachment to the Nation, and that they are unlikely to be displaced from our territory.”

The Supreme Court description continues with a quote from AG William French Smith, who testified in Congress in 1981:

“We have neither the resources, the capability nor the motivation to uproot and deport millions of illegal aliens, many of whom have become, in effect, members of the community. By granting limited legal status to the productive and law-abiding members of this shadow population, we will recognize reality and devote our enforcement resources to deterring future illegal arrivals. ”

When noting the “failure to establish an effective bar to the employment of undocumented aliens,” the Supreme Court actually put its finger on the only possible solution to the problem: The employment of undocumented aliens on the black market, without social security number and filing no tax returns.

Any company or private individual who hires someone on the black market is breaking the law. That company or individual can be sued not only by the Immigration Service but by the IRS, the undocumented alien smoked out and dealt with under the law.

The question to my mind is then, Why don’t Immigration and IRS band together to do this? (Hint: businesses pay kickbacks, don’t they? Contribute to PACs?)

Unless they attack the problem this way, then there’s no way to find illegals under American law as it currently stands.

Found within his even-by-Obama standards massive federal budget proposal is billions more dollars to be allocated to the IRS with the number one goal of then increasing the agency’s ability to go after American citizens.

23 liberal Dims send a letter to Boehner asking that he delay Bibi’s trip till after the Israeli elections. Why? The Dims say the Repubs are using Netanyahu as a “political tool against Obama” – that’s the actual reason. Boehner and Bibi made O look like the petulant child he is. The letter goes on to offer a couple of other reasons: !) the timing of the visit, the purpose of which, according to the Dims is to promote new sanctions against Iran will just “throw a wrench in negotiations.
2) Bibi needs to wait till after the Israeli elections – tho why that matters to the Dims is not made clear. I guess they’re supporting his opponent, and fear the speech to congress will win votes for him.

Publicly demonstrating to one of our allies that the US is willing to listen to concerns related to enemy threats is always a bad thing IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S POV. The preferred method of dealing with Israel would be for the president to wait until he thought a mic was off and whisper his plans to plans to be “flexible”. Barack wants to talk out of both sides of his mouth – not pissing off either side … unless Israel is one of the sides, in which case he doesn’t give a shit about what happens, as long as it doesn’t make him look week.

Boehner said he found it necessary not to inform Barack about the invitation to the Israeli PM because he feared Barack would try to stop the visit from taking place.

The Dims who sent this letter are not to be believed when they say that they’re concerned about the threat a visit from Israeli PM’s would pose to negotiations with Iran. That’s a lie. They don’t like the fact that Obama was not consulted about the visit. It’s about Obama looking like a wimp. Then when he had an opportunity to respond with some measure of maturity and graciousness, he chose, instead to act like a spoiled brat.

Anyway. It’s not Obama or his ego that matter here. Israel is looking at a potential threat to its very survival. To hell with how Bibi’s visit makes Barack look.

A group of 23 liberal House Democrats urged Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday to delay Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress next month.

In the letter spearheaded by Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the lawmakers argued that Netanyahu was being used as a “political tool” against President Obama.

“As members of Congress who support Israel, we share concern that it appears that you are using a foreign leader as a political tool against the president,” they wrote.
Netanyahu’s March 3 address will be just two weeks before the Israeli elections and while international negotiators work on a deal with Iran to curtail the country’s nuclear weapons program. Netanyahu is expected to focus on the Iran negotiations in his speech and call for harsher sanctions.

Instead of March 3, the House Democrats suggested, Netanyahu’s speech could be moved to some time after the Israeli elections.

Re Rudy and current NYC Mayor deBlasio
Perhaps some NYC channels are wise enough to skip altogether, Rudy’s relevation regarding Obama love for America. But NBC is not one of them. Wilhelm, who never met a camera he could not speal to, had words for Rudy. I chose to move on and have not heard them.
Other channels kept any coverage they planned close to the vest. But there was one more chuckle to be had: seems numbers of candidates applying for NYPD training are down. Concern about a shortage of police officers in the city was expressed.

ADMIN: this article shows that U.S. District Judge Hanen did a very good job with the opinion in support of the preliminary injunction . . . . He really picks apart the Obama’s case, thus demonstrating the illegality and harm Obama’s amnesty action imposes and why it is not prosecutorial discretion because if does not simply cease enforcement, it conveys tangible benefits on the lawbreakers–work permits, social security benefits, freedom of travel, and now we hear about a $25000 gift to millions of them from the taxpayers. What has happened here is so bad and so unprecedented that it would be a hollow mockery to justify all this over the issue of standing. The effect of doing that is to concede that the Constitution means nothing and a great societal harm has been inflicted on the American People by an imperious president with no legal remedy. Unfortunately, we have coward Roberts as the gatekeeper.
—–

Plain Truth: The Best Lines From the Injunction Halting Executive Amnesty
Judge Andrew Hanen is Will Rogers in a robe.

There’s still a lot of litigating ahead for the immigration lawsuit brought by 26 states against the Obama administration. But whatever the end result, Judge Andrew Hanen ought to be given the Will Rogers Award for his straightforward, forthright, plain-speaking analysis of what the president has really done with his immigration plan.

Hanen is the federal district court judge in Texas who issued an injunction against implementing the amnesty plan on President’s Day. His ruling cuts through the misrepresentations and legal flummery advanced by the administration to justify its “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents,” or DAPA program. His Feb. 16 opinion is chockfull of noteworthy comments:

Hanen notes that “illegal alien” is “the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law.” So the next time someone tells you that’s an offensive term, tell them that is the accurate legal term according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On the president’s right to “defer action” on removing millions of illegal aliens, Hanen notes: “deferred action is not a status created or authorized by law or by Congress, nor has its properties been described in any relevant legislative act.”

“[T]here can be no doubt that the failure of the federal government to secure the borders is costing the states — even those not immediately on the border — millions of dollars in damages each year … [and] the federal government has effectively denied the states any means to protect themselves from these effects.”

On the president’s policies encouraging increased illegal immigration: “[T]he Government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country” and “Unquestionably, some immigrants are encouraged to come to the United States illegally based upon the information they receive about DACA and DAPA. Reports of lax border security, minimal detention periods following apprehension, and the ease of missing immigration hearings may also encourage many to immigrate to this country illegally.”

“[T]he States assert that the Government has abandoned its duty to enforce the law. This assertion cannot be disputed … It is not necessary to search for or imply the abandonment of a duty; rather, the Government has announced its abdication … If one had to formulate from scratch a fact pattern that exemplified the existence of standing due to federal abdication, one could not have crafted a better scenario.”

On the government’s claim that it does not have the resources to enforce immigration laws: “if one accepts the Government’s position, then a lack of resources would be an acceptable reason to cease enforcing environmental laws, or the Voting Rights Act, or even the various laws that protect civil rights and equal opportunity.”

“Congress has clearly stated that illegal aliens should be removed … the DHS program clearly circumvents immigration laws and allows individuals that would otherwise be subject to removal to remain in the United States … DHS does not seek compliance with federal law in any form, but instead establishes a pathway for non-compliance and completely abandons entire sections of this country’s immigration law.”

“The Government must concede that there is no specific law or statute that authorizes DAPA. In fact, the President announced it was the failure of Congress to pass such a law that prompted him (through his delegate, Secretary Johnson) to ‘change the law.’”

DHS cannot “enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them … The DHS Secretary is not just rewriting the laws; he is creating them from scratch.”

On the government’s claim that the federal court has no right to review the legality of the DAPA program: “As there is no statute that authorized the DHS to implement the DAPA program, there is certainly no statute that precludes judicial review.”

In dismissing the administration’s oft-heard claim that its immigration policy is within its power of prosecutorial discretion: “Instead of merely refusing to enforce the [Immigration and Nationality Act]’s removal laws against an individual, the DHS has enacted a wide-reaching program that awards legal presence, to individuals Congress has deemed deportable or removable, as well as the ability to obtain Social Security numbers, work authorization permits, and the ability to travel. Absent DAPA, these individuals would not receive these benefits. The DHS has not instructed its officers to merely refrain from arresting, ordering the removal of, or prosecuting unlawfully-present aliens … Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also entail bestowing benefits. Non-enforcement is just that — not enforcing the law.”

The Administration’s non-enforcement policy is near absolute. As Hanen points out, the administration has said that, even in the unlikely event that an illegal alien is rejected for the DAPA program, they “will not be referred to ICE for purposes of removal.” In other words, even “if you do not qualify, you still get to stay.”

Contrary to the administration’s false claim that immigration agents will retain the discretion to deny benefits to illegal aliens under the DAPA program, “with the criteria set, from the President down to the individual USCIS employees actually processing the applications, discretion is virtually extinguished.”

The states “allege that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a ‘virtually irreversible’ action once taken. The Court agrees.” Hanen added, “This genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle” — something the administration appears to view as a benefit rather than a drawback.

And finally, according to Judge Hanen, the public interest “that weighs the heaviest [in this controversy] is ensuring that actions of the Executive Branch (and within it, the DHS — one of the nation’s most important law enforcement agencies) comply with this country’s laws and its Constitution.” President Obama’s actions show little concern for that interest.

What Will Rogers once said about Congress can now be applied to the administration’s behavior: with this White House, every time it makes a joke, it’s a law, and every time it makes a law, it’s a joke.

23 liberal Dims send a letter to Boehner asking that he delay Bibi’s trip till after the Israeli elections.
—————
That is because those fucking cocksuckers and Obama are working to defeat Bibi in those election—in fact pizza face Massio and Axelgrease are over there now working for the opposition. They see Bibi as an impediment to a deal with Iran, and the want to eliminate that impediment. When they sign a letter like that, their motives are venal and transparent. Fuck them.

These fucking progs have done everything they can to thwart Israel and undermine its security on the foreign affairs front. Yet now, suddenly 23 of these Obama acolytes are worried that by letting Bibi speak to Congress we would be interfering in the Israeli elections???? Truth to tell, the whole reason Obama automtons like pizza face and grease are there is to interfere in the Israeli election, to get an Israel leader who will play Neville Chamberlain to Obama’s Neville Chamberlain. If they are going to lie–and for them it is like breathing, then it would be best not to tell such a transparent lie that it insults our intelligence.

Graeme Wood’s thoughtful piece in The Atlantic on ISIS is getting a lot of traction and going viral. Salon has been busy blasting it as well as ThinkProgress. If you haven’t read it yet, then I highly recommend it. It makes Obama’s laughable stance on ISIS and Islamic terror look very much like willful ignorance.

Matthews did express his displeasure with GOP attempts to refuse to fund the President’s executive action, he added “he [Obama] still can’t get away with what he wants to do, which is set policy without the Congress participating. It is a system of three branches of government, and it’s very tricky.”
———–
Ohhhhhh

That line about jobs for jihadists was not an outlier comment. On the contrary it was a statement of future intent to do the only thing Obama has been successful at in his miserable life: vote buying—or if you happen to be the RNC in Missippi using similar underhanded tactics to fend off a conservative challenge–walk around money for blacks, plus scaring them to death with images of the KKK. Apparently, what he has in mind is a trillion dollar Marshall Plan for the middle east financed with your money–taxpayer money and it will be called, I am sure, the Obama Plan. All that money will end up in the hands of thugs and dictators–your money. And the RINO–people like McCain, Collins—I could name them all will vote for it, while they steal for themselves what is left of your money. And if Jeb is the candidate, that will be the end of them–ex malo bono.
——

A Lying in Winter

February 18th, 2015 – 8:06 pm

There’s really only one political game president Obama knows how to play. That is to buy off both enemies and friends with the taxpayer’s money. He’s a man with a hammer who only sees nails. When State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf suggested to Chris Matthews that “jobs” were the answer to ISIS, she was not mis-speaking but anticipating a policy whose outlines will emerge over the coming days. A kind of Marshall Plan for the Islamic world seems in the offing. Harf told Matthews how the administration was going to handle ISIS.

“We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. … But we cannot win this war by killing them,” department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “We need … to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether –”

At that point, Harf was interrupted by host Chris Matthews, who pointed out, “There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor Muslims.”

Harf continued to argue that the U.S. should work with other countries to “help improve their governance” and “help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”

Once is happenstance. Twice might be coincidence, because president Obama himself has said the same thing as Harf. He thinks the present trouble in the Middle East is the result of people being driven by lack of opportunity, bigotry and racism, to the desperate sorts of behavior exhibited by ISIS. ”Speaking Wednesday at his White House summit on ‘combating violent extremism’,” the president said:

“We do have to address the grievances that terrorists exploit,” he said. While poverty alone doesn’t turn people into terrorists, “resentments fester” when young people in corrupt countries have no education or opportunity.

The U.S. is at war with “people who have perverted Islam,” not the religion itself, he said. Dismissing the critics who have blasted him in recent weeks for his reluctance to explicitly link the terror threat to Muslim extremists — “Say it, Obama: ‘Islamic,’ ” read one New York Post headline— he said he refuses to “grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek.”

“They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills innocents in the name of God represents Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism,” Obama said.

He called for an end to the stigmatization and profiling of Muslims. Before he mentioned the Islamic State, he expressed support for Muslim-Americans “worried and afraid” in the aftermath of the slaying last week of three young people in Chapel Hill, N.C.

It’s another teaching moment where we’re told it’s really our fault we have enemies and he’s getting ready to buy them off. That’s not how he’ll put it, but that’s what it will amount to. He will reason that since Harry Truman got such excellent results by handing out money to white and sort of white people at the end of World War 2, it only makes sense to repeat the winning move in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Saudi Arabia? Did I say Saudi Arabia, a country awash with trillions of dollars? Well maybe they’re a few billion dollars and a little self-esteem short of making into the the “rule based” world.

And there’s no time to lose. CNN reports that Libya, once a pipeline so useful in moving weapons from the outside world to the armies of the Arab Spring is threatening to backflow into Europe. “Libya could become a terror pipeline to Europe,” is how CNN puts it. To be perfectly fair there was a time when president Obama tried kinetic military action, under the rubric of “responsibility to protect”. But he only succeeded in having Libya wrested from his grasp and the barrels curved back on him so that it blew back on his face.

So he’s learned his lesson and resorted to dollar diplomacy. One of the agencies at the center of this new and enlightened approach is State’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications. “The Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) was established at the direction of the President and the Secretary of State to coordinate, orient, and inform government-wide foreign communications activities targeted against terrorism and violent extremism, particularly al-Qaida and its affiliates and adherents. Executive Order 13584, signed by President Obama on September 9, 2011, provides policy background and assigns interagency responsibilities to CSCC.” Just to show he means business, State was:

pleased to announce the appointment of Rashad Hussain as United States Special Envoy and Coordinator for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications. Special Envoy Hussain will lead a staff drawn from a number of U.S. departments and agencies to expand international engagement and partnerships to counter violent extremism and to develop strategic counterterrorism communications around the world. As part of this role, Special Envoy Hussain will also serve as Coordinator of the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, which was established at the direction of the President and former Secretary of State Clinton in 2010 and codified by President Obama’s Executive Order 13584 to coordinate, orient, and inform government-wide strategic communications focused on violent extremists and terrorist organizations.

Can you see it now? It’s all there in bureaucratese. Harf wasn’t speaking out of turn; no loose cannon. Harf came on the Chris Matthews show to deliver a message. They’re going to uplift those poor misguided people if they have to spend your last dollar to do it. If the public misunderstood Harf it was only because it sounded so ridiculous most thought she had lost her mind.

And when Emperor Norton Obama issues this decree and the democrats in congress line up like lemmings for him like they always do and when big business tells McConnell that this could be an even better way than Obamacare to fleece taxpayers and line our own pockets, someone need to siddle up to Old Crow and whisper in his ear, I know what your thinking, can I get away with this if I create a large enough smokescreen, or will the base of my party say strike one you fucked us on Obamacare, strike two you fucked us on amnesty and now this trillion dollar give away—and you think we will be stay in your party . . .. go ahead punk–make my day. And let your contributors vote for you, because nobody else will.

Concerning the real Emperor Norton–as opposed to the imposter at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue this bio:

After losing a lawsuit in which he tried to void his rice contract, Norton left San Francisco. He returned a few years later, laying claim to the position of Emperor of the United States.[7] Although he had no political power, and his influence extended only so far as he was humoured by those around him, he was treated deferentially in San Francisco, and currency issued in his name was honoured in the establishments he frequented.

Though some considered him insane or eccentric,[8] citizens of San Francisco celebrated his regal presence and his proclamations, such as his order that the United States Congress be dissolved by force and his numerous decrees

All that money will end up in the hands of thugs and dictators–your money.
_____________

Exactly. Money with which they will purchase guns, explosives, machetes, and other weapons. They’ll set up new training camps, ramp up their recruitment/radicalizing efforts, purchase tech devices, and they’ll still have enough money left over to buy sexy lingerie for the 72 virgins they expect to run into in hell.

Harf continued to argue that the U.S. should work with other countries to “help improve their governance” and “help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”
___________

Hell, Barack needs to work with other leaders to create jobs here. He and the Dims haven’t had much success with this on their own. But, to be fair, they have been able to create a large number of fake jobs – fake jobs, reported in their fake jobs reports. The problem with fake jobs is that the money sucks.

You sound upset and on the defensive. I sense I’m becoming ‘condescending’ again, because I’m actually ‘arguing’ (in the legal sense of the word) from the bench, so to speak, about the merits of a society of law as opposed to a lawless society.

You once said that, when I distinguished between true ‘free speech’ as opposed to irresponsible “free” speech, you agreed with me. Now, it seems, you no longer do.

“Society of law” is going to be a plank in HRC’s future platform. I think you should try to understand what it means and entails.

If anybody took offense when I said —

“Ted Cruz won a majority of votes by crackpots in a state where crackpots come a dime a dozen.”

— I don’t apologize either to Ted Cruz, to H44 bloggers or to the citizens of Texas — some of whom I’ve known, and they are not all crackpots —, because I expressed myself in English to American citizens on an American website, where I am “free” to say whatever the fuck I please.

That’s the way it is under the American law (or rather lack thereof) that you are so happy with.

However, under the laws of France — but also of the 17 other countries I listed upthread —, it is possible that someone could be insulted by the way I associated “crackpots” with “people from Texas.”

This would not be a gender or racial slur, but rather denigration of a person because of his country, or State, of origin. This kind of injurious language is subject to the same laws (in the 18 countries listed).

The insulted person or someone within earshot could then sue me for damages and, if I lost, I would then be prosecuted under the French Criminal Code.

In practice, though, it probably wouldn’t go so far. For example, if gonzotx complained, I’d say it “was all just good fun”; that I didn’t really think she was a crackpot; and offer her a café crème with a couple of croissants or whatever on the White House lawn once HRC is in office.

But gonzotx is not in France or subject to its laws, or the laws of any of the other 17 countries; and neither are my comments here at H44.

I’ll offer her (and you) a café crème and croissants anyway, or anything else you like, just to un-ruffle the ruffled feathers.

As for your insistent highlighting of the Rom deportation, I suggest you view the 2011 movie by Maïwenn called Polisse, part of which is an actual documentary of a police raid on a Rom trailer camp outside Paris. The Roms are awakened in the early morning hours and hauled off (for later imprisonment or deportation), while the BPM (“Brigade for the protection of minors”) takes care of the children separately.

On the BPM bus, you can watch the fun-loving children playing with the cops. There can be no tradeoff — either in the minds of the children, the cops, or the local population — between being protected from injurious language or being deported by plane back to Romania. The kids were not deported unless they wanted to be. It was the “parents” (if you can call them that) who were deported, with crimes of the following nature held against them:

(1) Pickpocketing and thievery

(2) Prostitution

(3) Drug dealing

(4) Begging, mendicancy

(5) Inciting minors to engage in crimes (1) to (4)

(6) Child labor

(7) Black market labor

(8) Selling children

(9) Not registering kids in school

(10) Living in France without residence papers

(11) Working in France without working papers

There are laws in France against all of these crimes, and there was sufficient evidence to convict all of the adults on most of them, least of all crimes (10) and (11). Sarkozy did no more than plea-bargain with them: Go back to Romania on the taxpayer’s dime, or spend the rest of your lives in prison. The Roms had little choice.

So, as I said, there was no tradeoff between good public relations and deportation. The public outcry at the time was because everybody loved the kids. In fact, many of the kids did stay in foster homes in France or were adopted by parents who cared more about them than their real Rom “parents”.

All the above crimes (with possible exception of (4)) are also against the law in the US where you are so happy to live. The difference is, the laws are not enforced or are not enforceable — in particular, (10) and (11), which are causing such a ruckus today in the US and is the subject of admin’s article above.

Admin: a good article from Powerline who quotes you from time to time.

The plight of Muslims living in this country?

Is that really a problem?

If you listen to that fucking Obama, that is the entire problem.

For those of us who live in the real world that is a hypothetical construct devoid of supporting evidence.

The problem is Muslims killing Jews and Christians by the thousands in the middle east, but Obama never mentioned that one.

Muslims who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, and on the USS Cole, and in Beruit and this most recent round of beheadings and burings.

He thinks that is junior varsity.

This is not delusional on his part–it is purposeful.

Obama hates western civilization, America and white people.

He survives on hate.

And it leaks out in his constant apologies, and his unalterable refusal to defend our interests.

THE DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH APOLOGIZE FOR AMERICA

“Defender of the Faith” is one of the British sovereign’s titles. Of course, Britain has an official faith, the Church of England. The United States has no state religion, and if it did, it wouldn’t be Islam. Nevertheless, Barack Obama and his minions have set themselves up as official interpreters and defenders of the Muslim faith. This doesn’t stop with insisting that Islam has nothing–nothing!–to do with Islamic terrorism. Here is Department of Homeland Security head Jeh Johnson, telling the terrorism summit yesterday about “the plight of Muslims living in this country.”

[W]e in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face. And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face.

This is simply insane. Does the Obama administration think that pleading guilty–falsely–to discriminating against Muslims is somehow going to pacify ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the rest? And what, exactly, is the “plight” of American Muslims? How does it compare with the plight of Muslims who live in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Libya and elsewhere in the Islamic world?

Not to mention the plight of Christians and Jews who live in those places, to the extent there are any left. A funny thing about that: if, as Johnson assures us, “the Islamic faith is one about peace and brotherhood,” what, exactly, happened to all those Christians and Jews? The administration is delusional, but one constant, no matter the context, is its reflexive instinct to condemn America.

It is incomprehensible to me that will all the radical “islamists” out there burning people alive and actually marching people to the sea and cutting their heads off…that O and what now stands for the Democratic party would choose NOW to literally turn their backs on Israel.

I see your point; but the Islamic State is not a direct or even indirect threat to Israel right now. These are separate issues, really, because you have several Muslim states, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, who are actively engaged in the fight against the Islamic State. Historically, both these countries have been at unwilling peace with Israel and even partners, to some extent (Saudi oil), while Israel is not engaged in the fight against the Islamic State.

The barbaric activities of the Islamic State are therefore more of a concern to neighboring Muslim countries than they are to Israel or the US.

The self proclaimed George Washington of illegals –Guterez is promising us that if these latter day visigoths do not get everything they want then with his blessing they will burn down our houses, kill our children and rape our domestic animals. And like so many others on the left whenever the Repbulicans show any kind of backbone they and their big media allies all stand up and scream that Republicans are making a big mistake and will rue the day. What King Louie–I mean George has done is warn Republicans that to give these lawbreakers any path to citizenship will be the death of the party. He spelled it our so clearly, too clearly for his own good. But he does not have much common sense. In fact he is a joke.

————–
A TIMELY WARNING FROM REP. GUTIERREZ
Rep. Luis Gutierrez warns of “unprecedented militancy” from the immigrant community in response to the injunction issued by Judge Andrew Hanen against President Obama’s executive order on immigration. The militancy, he explains, will be directed at Republicans:

The Republican party is making a critical mistake. The militancy that will be activated throughout the immigrant community — in terms of voter registration, voter participation, voter anger at the Republican party as a party in the United States — I think you’re going to see it in an unprecedented manner.

Look, you may think you won today, but your victory is going to be very short-lived. And November 2016 is coming right around the corner, and this will come back to haunt you.

Whatever the value of Gutierrez’s statement as a prediction about 2016, it unquestionably has value as an unintended warning about the consequences of creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

If a court decision that does nothing more than uphold basic principles about the limits of executive power will precipitate “unprecedented” political activism directed against Republicans, how can Republicans rationally favor legislation that will make the GOP even more vulnerable to such activism in the future?

Our system of government is already under assault from President Obama and his base. Republicans should dismiss out of hand the notion of adding millions of shock troops, all of them lawbreakers and many coming from countries where presidential supremacy is taken for granted, to that base.

And they should thank Rep. Gutierrez for reminding them of the “unprecedented militancy” that awaits if the GOP gifts him and his party unprecedented number of new citizen militants.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez warns of “unprecedented militancy” from the immigrant community
__________

Luis left out the a key word – illegal. Should read ” ……. from the illegal immigrant community”. It takes a lot of nerve – or Obama’s brand of hope, and his illegal promises – for people who are violating the law by being in this country to threaten violence against its people.

S, in Obama’s and the Dims’ reaction to Netanyahu’s plans to speak to congress they have turned their backs on Israel – or at least taken another step toward doing so. Obama has demonstrated his lack of support for Israel from the beginning of his first term as president almost. Now, in pandering to Iran, an avowed would be destroyer of Israel, he has boldly done so.

Yes, the fact that some of the ME countries are NOW beginning to respond to the threat of the radical islamists among them is a positive. But both the radicals and the non-radical muslims hate Israel for the same reason: they’re Israelis, not Muslims. Would those countries who are fighting Isis do so if al of the attacks by the bloody bastards were on Israeli soil? I think some would be very disinclined to do so.

I’m not upset, jes. I think most civilized people want people to exercise their right to free speech responsibly. But with all freedoms there is the probability that some will chose not to do so. We have seen the right of free press abused greatly . No, government may not forcibly prevent an outlet from reporting the news, but it can and has certainly spied on reporters and it has leaned on some to keep certain info from being published or broadcast. More importantly, IMHO, the media have violated their own right to free press by using it as an arm of this government to selectively report negative news about it and to manipulate voters and public opinion.

People should chose to exercise their right of free speech responsibly. But, government should not have the right to control what people say about other people they don’t like. If liable or slander are committed, there are laws through which such violations can be addressed. Beyond that, and the few other exceptions currently in US law, there should be no government intervention.

How evenly would a law that prohibits racial slurs be applied with Eric Holder in the AG’s office? We all know how that would go. Having such a law would provide the government with just one more opportunity to exploit yet another law for political purposes.

Peaceful criticism of Islamic culture is bad, he suggested. ”When people spew hatred toward others — because of their faith or because they’re immigrants — it feeds into terrorist narratives. … It feeds a cycle of fear and resentment and a sense of injustice upon which extremists prey,” he said.

So “we have to ensure that our diverse societies truly welcome and respect people of all faiths and backgrounds,” said Obama.

Home » Law Enforcement » Homeland Security Chief: My Job Is To “Give Voice To The Plight Of Muslims”

Feb 19, 2015 No Comments ›› Infidel Alie

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY JEH JOHNSON: We in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face. And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face. The fact that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and the Islamic faith is one about peace and brotherhood.

I think most civilized people want people to exercise their right to free speech responsibly. But with all freedoms there is the probability that some will chose not to do so. We have seen the right of free press abused greatly . No, government may not forcibly prevent an outlet from reporting the news, but it can and has certainly spied on reporters and it has leaned on some to keep certain info from being published or broadcast. More importantly, IMHO, the media have violated their own right to free press by using it as an arm of this government to selectively report negative news about it and to manipulate voters and public opinion.

“Government may not forcibly prevent an outlet from reporting the news”? Yes, the Obola government is indeed following in the footsteps of the Nazi and Soviet governments, and the Chinese government that squelched the broadcasting of the Tienanmen demonstrations and other social unrest.

My question to you is: why doesn’t that happen in countries like France, where there are traditional, enforceable laws setting down the rules and limits of free speech?

People should chose to exercise their right of free speech responsibly. But, government should not have the right to control what people say about other people they don’t like. If liable or slander are committed, there are laws through which such violations can be addressed. Beyond that, and the few other exceptions currently in US law, there should be no government intervention.

How evenly would a law that prohibits racial slurs be applied with Eric Holder in the AG’s office? We all know how that would go. Having such a law would provide the government with just one more opportunity to exploit yet another law for political purposes.

Well, to answer that question yourself, remember that the laws are first applied in civil court, and then criminal. The injured party brings suit, and if the aggressor is convicted, then the States prosecutes the offender.

Do you remember the video of Shabaz yelling at passersby in Philadelphia (the City of Brotherly Love, no less) in 2009, calling them “crackers” and other epithets, and saying his gang was going to kill all their babies now that there was a black man in the White House?

Well, I said at the time, after viewing the video, that Shabaz would have been fined and jailed if he had talked like that in France or under French law, no matter who the Attorney General was.

That’s the solution of the “society of law”. Expect HRC to talk about it going forward.

The O supporters have been busy, busy. Their writing hands must be getting tired as they pen article after article proclaiming that O will prevail on the immigration issue. They cite legal rulings and they slam Judge Hanen. The article below expresses a different view point, and explains why the Texas judge got it right. Admin had previously made this same point.

___________

(snip)

“In reality, Hanen has made a very narrow ruling on grounds that appellate judges will find hard to ignore.

At issue are giving legal status and work authorization to illegal immigrants who have children who are legal residents, and dropping the age restriction on a previous administrative amnesty for those brought here illegally as children.

Hanen did not base his preliminary injunction on the claim of unconstitutional overreach. That remains to be litigated.

Rather, he ruled that the way the administration promulgated the administrative amnesty violated the Administrative Procedure Act. That act requires that changes in federal rules, or their equivalent, be noticed and open for public comment before being finalized.”

Jes, when I said I didn’t know what we were arguing about, I meant that you were happy with the regulation of “free speech” (now there’s an oxymoron) in France, and the rest of us were happy with the lack of regulation in this country. Everybody’s happy.

You have predicted several times that Hillary will support more restrictions on free speech if she runs for president. If she does so, she simply won’t be elected. People have had more than enough of the expected PC speech from Obama and his people.

Hanen “ruled that the way the administration promulgated the administrative amnesty violated the Administrative Procedure Act. That act requires that changes in federal rules, or their equivalent, be noticed and open for public comment before being finalized.”

OK, very good point. I hadn’t realized that in my comments of December/January. It must have been argued that way before the court, because it wasn’t in the original lawsuit — or maybe it was: I didn’t understand the first of the three counts.

The Obama administration revealed Friday that it sent about 800,000 HealthCare.gov customers a tax form containing the wrong information, and asked them to hold off on filing their 2014 taxes.
The self-inflicted bungle follows weeks of administration officials touting a successful enrollment season — one that saw far fewer technical glitches than the rocky launch in late 2013. … “This does not mean that your tax credit was incorrect; this is purely an error in what was printed on the form,” the blog post said.
But the administration is urging customers, that, “If your form was incorrect, please wait to file your 2014 Federal income taxes.”
About 11.4 million people signed up this season. But errors in tax information mean that nearly 1 million people may have to wait longer to get their tax refunds this year.
California, which is running its own insurance market, just announced a similar problem affecting about 100,000 people in that state. … And the 50,000 or so who already filed may have to resubmit their returns. … Meanwhile, federal officials also announced a special sign-up extension for uninsured people facing the health care law’s tax penalties.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/20/obama-administration-sent-800000-healthcaregov-customers-wrong-tax-info/

After speaking the truth, Rudy G blows it. No explanation was needed. Based on O’s actions it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t love this country. Rudy owed neither explanation or apology. He was expressing his opinion about Obama feelings about America That’s his right – for now – no explanation required.

As its afternoon shows hosted by Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid are canceled due to poor ratings, MSNBC is reportedly planning to replace Chris Hayes with Rachel Maddow.

It was hardly a surprise Thursday when ratings-challenged MSNBC announced the cancellation of the poor-performing afternoon programs hosted by Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid after less than a year, with veteran news anchor Thomas Roberts stepping in to preside over the two-hour block from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

Until a permanent replacement is named for Roberts’ 5:30 a.m. program Way Too Early, the 6 a.m. Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski will temporarily take up the slack by starting a half-hour earlier.

But according to knowledgeable sources at the Comcast-owned cable network, Thursday’s moves were only the opening salvo in a wider programming shakeup.

In the relatively near term, two well-placed sources predicted to The Daily Beast, Chris Hayes will be relieved of his weak-performing 8 p.m. show All In, to be replaced by the current 9 p.m. host of The Rachel Maddow Show, while a talent search is underway to fill the prime-time slot to be vacated by Maddow.

An MSNBC spokesperson—who tried put a happy face on the demotions with talk of prime-time specials and “multiplatform” national reporting for the still-employed Farrow and Reid—declined to comment on the Hayes-Maddow scenario.

In the longer term, these sources said, the Rev. Al Sharpton—a larger-than-life personality who attracts a 35 percent African-American audience but continues, after 3½ years of nightly practice, to wrestle with his Teleprompter—could eventually be moved from his weeknight 6 p.m. slot to a weekend time period, as MNSBC President Phil Griffin attempts to reverse significant viewership slides by accentuating straight news over left-leaning opinion.

“Everybody in the food chain from top to bottom understands that the Olbermann era is over,” said an MSNBC source, referring to the glory days during George W. Bush’s administration when incendiary liberal Keith Olbermann regularly attracted a million viewers—many of them seeking refuge from White House and Republican talking points.

The MSNBC source said, “Going left was a brilliant strategy while it lasted and made hundreds of millions of dollars for Comcast, but now it doesn’t work anymore…The goal is to move away from left-wing TV.”

Olbermann, who these days hosts a sports program on ESPN, made his bones by blistering Bush and feuding with Fox News star Bill O’Reilly—the No. 1 rated cable news personality–and acrimoniously departed from MSNBC in February 2011 for former Vice President Al Gore’s Current TV, from which he was fired a year later.

Griffin—who has been forced to deal with a number of awkward personnel issues during his 7-year leadership of the cable outlet, notably the firings of Martin Bashir and Alec Baldwin for ugly verbal spewings—had high hopes for Farrow and Reid last year when he inserted their shows into the daytime lineup.

“I’m confident the changes and additions to our lineup will strengthen the flow of
our programming,” Griffin wrote in a staff memo heralding their arrival last year.

MSNBC remains a reliable money-maker for Comcast, since much of its revenue is generated not by viewership but by cable subscription fees.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, he was clearly smitten with Farrow, the son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen (or Frank Sinatra, depending), then a precocious 26-year-old who was largely untested on camera.

“Within 20 minutes, it was ‘Holy Cow!’ I knew,” Griffin said, describing their first meeting. “I’d wondered, is this guy for real? Is he a freak? And he walked in and we had the greatest conversation about where media is going—and that is critical. We’ve got to be at the forefront of it, and if we’re not, we’re going to lose.”

Discussing his choice of Reid, then 44, he said: “Joy is a really thoughtful journalist and analyst, and she’s found real success on this network. She’s formidable on-air and very smart. She fits our sensibility and our audience really connects with her. She’s a natural.”

Alas, their programs tanked in both overall ratings and the all-important 25-to-54 viewer age demographic, on which advertising rates are set.

In the Nielsen period ending Tuesday, Farrow’s ratings reflected a 70-percent loss in the key demographic over the same period a year ago when Andrea Mitchell anchored the 1 p.m. time slot.

Reid did slightly better, losing 67 percent of the 25-to-54 viewership that had watched Tamron Hall.

Hayes, a writer on the Nation magazine who had frequently substituted for Maddow, was never going to mount a serious challenge to O’Reilly, yet he managed to fall short of even modest expectations, regularly coming in dead last against CNN’s Anderson Cooper and HLN’s Nancy Grace.

A year ago, however, Griffin stoutly defended Hayes. “I’m committed to Chris Hayes at 8 o’clock,” he told The Daily Beast. “The line is straight up, and I couldn’t be happier with where we are. I’m glad, because I put him there.”

Now, not so much.

Still, for all its ratings troubles, MSNBC remains a reliable money-maker for Comcast, since much of its revenue is generated not by viewership but by cable subscription fees.

The troubles at MSNBC are a minor irritant within the NBC Universal News Group compared with the shocking flameout of NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams over his public embellishments concerning his journalistic adventures. Williams’s interim replacement, Lester Holt, so far is holding his own.

That gives Griffin breathing room while he tries to remake the cable outlet, which has been falling backward even as it trumpets the ironic slogan, “Lean Forward.”

Giuliani gave a strong response to Megyn Kelly:
Megyn Kelly asked him if he wished to apologize and he replied”Not at all. I want to repeat it” FoxNews

so the downturn reported here is surprising and I find Rudy has been victimized:

Giuliani: Obama Had a White Mother, So I’m Not a Racist
[His actual statement is as follows:]
“…Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people,” Mr. Giuliani said in the interview. “This isn’t racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism.”
He also challenged a reporter to find examples of Mr. Obama expressing love for his country.
“I’m happy for him to give a speech where he talks about what’s good about America and doesn’t include all the criticism,” Mr. Giuliani said.
Mr. Giuliani said his remarks on Wednesday night were in response to a question about what kind of president he would like to see elected in 2016. He responded, he said, by telling the audience that he wanted a leader who was Mr. Obama’s opposite.
“I want an American president to raise our spirits again, like a Ronald Reagan,” he said…. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/19/giuliani-obama-had-a-white-mother-so-im-not-a-racist/?_r=0

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf wrote her college honors thesis on “how conservative evangelical support for Israel complicates U.S. foreign policy,” according to Indiana University records.

Harf’s thesis further illustrates the collegiate thinking in an Obama administration that has alienated a key American ally in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Harf, 33, previously worked on Obama’s 2012 campaign.”
__________

S, In this excerpt from your link above, the title of Barf’s thesis reflects an immature mind. It is not only the “conservative evangelicals” who support Israel. This excerpt from a 2014 Pew poll shows in when comparing views of Americans on Israel and Palestine, 73% Republicans favor Israel, 44 % of Dims favor Israel, and 39% LIBERAL Dims favor Israel.

While obviously more Repubs than Dims favor Israel, with 44% support among Dims and 39% among liberals Barf is fooling herself if she believes only conservative evangelicals support Israel. Even tho the numbers prove otherwise, this young woman’s narrow view doesn’t allow her them to compute in her mind. She’s just repeating that hard left propaganda she’s learned in class or read in an article by some obscure quasi-socialist professor.

That mindset among the young reflects such a deficit of critical thinking skills, it’s no wonder Obama was able to hook them. Hell, all cult leaders know if you want to recruit new members, you don’t go after the experienced – those who have learned that life and ideology can’t be as black and white as they thought it was or could be, back when they were young. Cults go after the young, gullible, black and white thinkers who can be easily influenced by smooth talking cult leaders.

I’ll tell you, it does not make me rest easy at night knowing that this young woman holds a high ranking position with the US State Dept. It makes me feel about as secure as I would if we had Polyanna as Sec. of Defense?

Obama to seek emergency order restarting immigration programs
————-
Admin: no surprise here. I expect that appeal will be to the Fifth Circuit, and they will fare no better there than they did before the district court judge. This is not the time for McConnell to cave. If he needs to he should take a chapter out of Reid’s book and abandon the 60 vote requirement. Govern EXACTLY like Reid governed if you want to have a party left when the smoke clears.

Big article in WSJ this morning by Kim Strassel contending that the Clinton Global Initiative is not a charitable organization but a political one–designed to keep the Clinton political team intact during periods they are not in office. It goes on to say this will be a big problem for Jeb Bush. Now there is a hypothetical for you. He will be gone in a year. The base hates him almost as much as they hate Obama. The money men don’t get that. And that is why to party is headed for extinction.

She also says it is a vehicle for soliciting foreign money for domestic political activities, which raises a question of its legality. That will be another line of attack we will have to fend off, if the candidate is Bush. If the candidate is Cruz, I will be otherwise occupied. To me the most important issue is the Constitution and the war by the political class on the middle class. Both parties are in pare deliecto. No establishment candidate can tackle that problem. It will take an outsider, and it does not appear to me that Hillary intends to position herself as an outsider, as some of us on this blog have recommended when we urged her to advocate change from the deranged policies of Obama.

wbb, will he appeal to supremes if Fifth Circuit upholds Hanen’s ruling?

Re: Accusation that foreign money coming into CGF is used for political activities, if there’s proof of that, those making the accusation need to prove it. If not, they need to recant these allegations. How little has been said of the very poor screening practices employed when O was running in 2008 – and probably beyond. I guess it will never be a big deal to anyone – least of all the Dims.

—
It’s funny that many African American’s didn’t think Barry was ‘black enough’ to represent them in 2007, because as Giulaina points out, “he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people”.

After he was elected…all his whiteness and ‘white’ upbringing was tossed out and locked up with his CV, BC and history. Magically, he became the new 100%, Rev. “God damn America”, Wright raised, hero of the black community.

Too bad they don’t allow themselves to see past his skin color and acknowledge his massive failures that have hurt all Americans.

Guilani does a good job of defending his accurate observation that Obama does not love America—and he invokes the same rationale for it as I did. He cannot love this country, he cannot defend it, he can only condemn it because of Reverend Wright, Franklin Marshall Davis etc. These interactions, experiences and emotion run through his mind like a long running movie 24-7. This is so obvious that you must suspect the patriotism of those who refuse to accept it. We are not talking about a political debate here–not anymore. We taking aoubt the difference between good on the one hand, and evil on the other. It takes an evil man like Obama to bury this nation in inexingishable debt, so he can tank the dollar, and pave the way for the special drawing rights as a world currency, which is one of the projects that his mentor Soros is keen on.

There is no doubt in my mind, none, that Guilani wanted to bait the dims and leftist media–and now the issue of Obama’s patriotism is on the table for debate. This should have beenn done six years ago, when he started this apologizing for America crap. The leftist are now on the defensive for a change. Well done Rudi. There is no practical difference between saying someone does not love the country and saying they are not patriotic. A distinction without a difference. Kelly tries to split that hair by saying the dyfucntional things Obama does are just through a different lens. That point is crushed by comparisons to Truman, Kennedy, and Bill Clinton who DID love this country, and were not out to destroy it as Obama clearly is.

Most of the time you hear big media say this will hurt the republican brand, you know you are over target and firing for effect. The synonymy for this is stop what you are doing, uncle, etc. Rudy merely said what millions outside the beltway see in this racist four flusher. Only within the beltway where economic prosperity is in full bloom is the truth about Obama and speaking about it contra bonus mores. Those who object have too much to lose. But they hang themselves by their overreaction to it.